Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 404 Species in the Southeastern United States as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat, 62260-62280 [2011-25672]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62260-62280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25672]



[[Page 62259]]

Vol. 76

Thursday,

No. 194

October 6, 2011

Part IV





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding 
on a Petition To List 404 Species in the Southeastern United States as 
Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 62260]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0091; MO 92210-0-0008]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Partial 90-Day 
Finding on a Petition To List 404 Species in the Southeastern United 
States as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
partial 90-day finding on a petition to list 404 species in the 
southeastern United States as threatened or endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) and to designate 
critical habitat. Based on our review, we find that for 11 of the 404 
species: Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly (Hydroptila sarahae), Rogue Creek 
hydroptila caddisfly (Hydroptila okaloosa), Florida brown checkered 
summer sedge (Polycentropus floridensis), Florida fairy shrimp 
(Dexteria floridana), South Florida rainbow snake (Farancia 
erytrogramma seminola), Ouachita creekshell (Villosa arkansasensis), 
crystal darter (Crystallaria asprella), spotted darter (Etheostoma 
maculatum), Florida bog frog (Rana okaloosae), Greensboro burrowing 
crayfish (Cambarus catagius), and Blood River crayfish (Orconectes 
burri), the petition does not present substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted at this 
time. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review for these 11 
species. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new information 
that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, these 
11 species or their habitat at any time.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 6, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number [FWS-R4-ES-2011-0091]. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30345. 
Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or questions 
concerning this finding to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Mizzi, Chief, Division of 
Endangered Species, Ecological Services, Southeast Regional Office, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES) by telephone at 404-679-
7169; or by facsimile at 404-679-7081. If you use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on 
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that a 
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on 
information found in the petition, supporting information submitted 
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. 
The Act requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, we are to 
make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, and 
publish our notice of this finding promptly in the Federal Register.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information 
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day 
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a 
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition 
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial 
scientific or commercial information was presented, the Act requires 
that we promptly review the status of the species (status review), 
which is subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.

Petition History

    On April 20, 2010, we received, via electronic mail, a petition 
from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers 
Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, 
Tennessee Forests Council, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Tierra 
Curry, and Noah Greenwald to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland 
species from the southeastern United States as threatened or endangered 
species and to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing under 
the Endangered Species Act. The petition clearly identified itself as 
such, and included the requisite identification information as required 
by 50 CFR 424.14(a). On April 21, 2010, via electronic mail to Noah 
Greenwald at CBD, we acknowledged receipt of the Petition. On May 10, 
2010, we provided additional formal written acknowledgement of receipt.
    Petitioners developed an initial list of species by searching 
NatureServe for species that ``occur in the twelve states typically 
considered the southeast, occur in aquatic, riparian, or wetland 
habitats and appeared to be imperiled.'' Species were considered 
imperiled if they were classified as G1 or G2 by NatureServe, near 
threatened or worse by the International Union for Conservation of 
Nature (IUCN), or a species of concern, threatened or endangered by the 
American Fisheries Society.
    NatureServe conservation status ranks range from critically 
imperiled (G1) to imperiled (G2) to vulnerable (G3) to apparently 
secure (G4) to demonstrably secure (G5). Status is assessed and 
documented at three distinct geographic scales: Global (G), national 
(N), and subnational (S) (i.e., state/province/municipal). Subspecies 
are similarly assessed with a subspecific (T) numerical assignment. 
Assessment by NatureServe of any species as being critically imperiled 
(G1), imperiled (G2), or vulnerable (G3) does not constitute a 
recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the Act. NatureServe 
status assessment procedures have different criteria, evidence 
requirements, purposes, and taxonomic coverage than government lists of 
endangered and threatened species, and, therefore, these two types of 
lists should not be expected to coincide. For example, an important 
factor in many legal listing processes is the extent to which a species 
is already receiving protection of some type--a consideration not 
included in the NatureServe conservation status ranks. Similarly, the 
IUCN and American Fisheries Society do not apply the same criteria to 
their ranking determinations as those encompassed in the Act and its 
implementing regulations.
    On May 7, 2010, the Service received correspondence from the 
Southeastern Fishes Council, dated May 2, 2010, with an explanation of 
their involvement in formulation of the petition. The Council was 
contacted by CBD, which solicited its involvement in the preparation of 
the subject petition. Southeastern Fishes Council members provided 
expertise in review of the CBD list of fishes in the draft petition.
    On May 27, 2010, the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 
submitted a letter to the Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Southeast Region, in support of the CBD petitions' inclusion of a large 
number of freshwater mollusks, including the

[[Page 62261]]

Ouachita creekshell. On September 1, 2010, and again on October 1, 
2010, CBD forwarded to the Regional Director, Service, Southeast 
Region, a letter of support for the subject petition from 35 
conservation organizations.
    The petition included 404 species for which the petitioners 
requested listing as endangered or threatened under the Act, and 
designation of critical habitat concurrent with the listing. It is our 
practice to evaluate all species petitioned for listing for the 
potential need to emergency list the species under the emergency 
provisions of the Act at section 4(b)(7) and as outlined at 50 CFR 
424.20. We have carefully considered the information provided in the 
petition and in our files and have determined that emergency listing is 
not indicated for any of the 404 species in the petition.
    We published a partial 90-day finding in the Federal Register on 
September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59836), making substantial findings for 374 
species and noting that 19 species had already been addressed through 
previous Federal actions by either the Service or the National Marine 
Fisheries Service. This partial 90-day finding covers the remaining 11 
species.

Previous Federal Actions

    A complete summary of the previous Federal actions regarding these 
11 species can be found in table 1.

     Table 1--Previous Federal Register (FR) Notices Addressing the
                           Petitioned Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Publication
     FR Citation            date            Action           Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
59 FR 58982..........      11/15/1994  Endangered and    Spotted frog;
                                        Threatened        Rogue Creek
                                        Wildlife and      hydroptila
                                        Plants (ETWP);    caddisfly;
                                        Animal            Florida bog
                                        Candidate         frog;
                                        Review for        Greensboro
                                        Listing as        burrowing
                                        Endangered or     crayfish.
                                        Threatened
                                        Species; Notice
                                        of Review.
56 FR 58804..........      11/21/1991  ETWP; Animal      Florida bog
                                        Candidate         frog;
                                        Review for        Greensboro
                                        Listing as        burrowing
                                        Endangered or     crayfish.
                                        Threatened
                                        Species.
54 FR 554............      01/06/1989  ETWP; Animal      Florida bog
                                        Notice of         frog;
                                        Review.           Greensboro
                                                          burrowing
                                                          crayfish.
49 FR 21664..........      05/22/1984  ETWP; Review of   Greensboro
                                        Invertebrate      burrowing
                                        Wildlife for      crayfish.
                                        Listing as
                                        Endangered or
                                        Threatened
                                        Species.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Species Information

    The petition identified 404 aquatic, riparian, or wetland species 
from the southeastern United States as needing protection under the 
Act. This list included 15 amphibians, 6 amphipods, 18 beetles, 3 
birds, 4 butterflies, 9 caddisflies, 83 crayfish, 14 dragonflies, 48 
fish, 1 springfly, 1 fairy shrimp, 2 isopods, 4 mammals, 1 moth, 48 
mussels, 6 nonvascular plants, 13 reptiles, 44 snails, 8 stoneflies, 
and 76 vascular plants. Of these 404 species, 11 species are addressed 
in this finding including: Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly (Hydroptila 
sarahae), Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly (Hydroptila okaloosa), 
Florida brown checkered summer sedge (Polycentropus floridensis), 
Florida fairy shrimp (Dexteria floridana), South Florida rainbow snake 
(Farancia erytrogramma seminola), Ouachita creekshell (Villosa 
arkansasensis), crystal darter (Crystallaria asprella), spotted darter 
(Etheostoma maculatum), Florida bog frog (Rana okaloosae), Greensboro 
burrowing crayfish (Cambarus catagius), and Blood River crayfish 
(Orconectes burri).
Sarah's Hydroptila Caddisfly (Hydroptila sarahae)
    The genus Hydroptila is likely the most common genus of 
microcaddisflies in Florida, as is the case in North America. The genus 
inhabits a wide variety of habitats from small streams to large rivers 
and most lentic (slow-moving or standing water habitats) environments. 
All instars feed on filamentous algae (Nielsen 1948, as cited in 
Pescador et al. 2004), as well as diatoms and other algae (Wiggins, 
1996a, as cited in Pescador et al. 2004). Most microcaddisflies 
complete development in a year or less.
    The petition states that this species of caddisfly is known only 
from four locations on Eglin Air Force Base (EAFB) in northwestern 
Florida (NatureServe 2008, as cited in the petition (p. 612)). However, 
we are aware of at least 11 locations on EAFB (St. Aubin, Service, 
pers. comm. 2010). The petition (p. 612) states that this species is 
dependent on ``clean creeks.'' The species is apparently restricted to 
EAFB, and occurs in ``steepheads'' (springheads in sandhill areas), 
spring runs, and clear creeks where aquatic vegetation is present. 
NatureServe ranks the species as critically imperiled.
Rogue Creek Hydroptila Caddisfly (Hydroptila okaloosa)
    The genus Hydroptila is likely the most speciose (rich in number of 
species) genus of microcaddisflies in Florida, as is the case in North 
America. The genus inhabits a wide variety of habitats from small 
streams to large rivers and most lentic environments. All instars feed 
on filamentous algae (Nielsen 1948, as cited in Pescador et al. 2004), 
as well as diatoms and other algae (Wiggins, 1996a, as cited in 
Pescador et al. 2004). Most microcaddisflies complete development in a 
year or less.
    The petition states that this species of caddisfly is known from 
only three creeks on EAFB (NatureServe 2008, as cited in the petition 
(p. 611). However, we are aware of the species' presence at eight 
locations on the Base (St. Aubin, pers. comm., 2010). The petition (p. 
611) states that this species is dependent on ``clean creeks.'' This 
species, like Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly, is apparently restricted to 
EAFB, and occurs in similar steep head and small stream habitats where 
clean water and aquatic macrophytes are present, and is sympatric with 
Sarah's hydroptila at five sites. NatureServe (2008) ranks the species 
as critically imperiled.
Florida Brown Checkered Summer Sedge (Polycentropus floridensis)
    NatureServe (2008) estimates the range of the Florida brown 
checkered summer sedge (Polycentropus floridensis) as 100 to 250 square 
kilometers (sq km) (about 40 to 100 square miles (sq mi)). According to 
the Petition (p. 883) and NatureServe (2008), this caddisfly is found 
in small, clear streams with moderate flow in sandhills with a pine-oak 
canopy that is fairly heavy. It is known from only three occurrences: 
One in Alabama (Baldwin County) and two in Florida (Walton County; 
headwaters of Rocky Creek 6.4 km (3.8 mi) southwest of Mossy Head and 
Hamilton County), although the Hamilton County occurrence is

[[Page 62262]]

disputed. The species is believed to be relatively stable, ``as long as 
stream habitats supporting populations on EAFB are protected (Rasmussen 
et al. 2008, p. 38), and also found to be widespread, though not common 
on EAFB (Rasmussen 2004, p. 45). NatureServe (2008) ranks the species 
as critically imperiled in Florida, and the State of Florida recognizes 
it as a `Species of Greatest Conservation Need.'
Florida Fairy Shrimp (Dexteria floridana)
    The Florida fairy shrimp (Dexteria floridana) was originally 
described by Dexter (1953) as a species of Eubranchipus. However, it is 
now classified in the family Linderiella, with four recognized species, 
and the monotypic Dexteria (Belk and Brtek 1995, 1997). The Florida 
fairy shrimp is known only from the type locality, a ``temporary pool 
approximately 6 km south of Gainesville,'' Florida. The total range is 
quantified as less than 100 square km (about 40 square miles). This 
species was only ever found in a temporary pool (NatureServe 2008). The 
petition did not provide any information on the life history of this 
species. However, other fairy shrimp in the order Anostraca inhabit 
temporary ponds and pools, have stalked compound eyes, 11 pairs of 
swimming legs (in American species), and no carapace (Pennak 1989 p. 
344). Fairy shrimp glide or swim gracefully by means of complex beating 
movements of the legs. Sometimes they drift along slowly, other times 
they dart rapidly or come to rest on the bottom (Pennak 1989 p. 346).
    Fairy shrimp diets consist mostly of algae, bacteria, Protozoa, 
rotifers, and bits of detritus gathering food items through movements 
of the legs. As inhabitants of temporary ponds and pools, which dry up 
completely in the dry warm months, fairy shrimp resting eggs are 
capable of withstanding desiccation and freezing. The eggs hatch into 
the typical nauplius (a larval form with three pairs of appendages and 
a single median eye) or to the more advanced metanauplius (a stage 
following the nauplius, and having about seven pairs of appendages) 
larvae, after which there is a long series of instars, each following a 
complete shedding of the exoskeleton. Changes in size from one instar 
to the next are gradual, and there is progressive appearance of more 
segments, more appendages, and increasing complexity of appendages. The 
number of instars may be variable depending on temperatures and food 
conditions. The active portion of the life cycle may be completed in as 
few as 15 days or as many as 9 months (Pennak 1989, pp. 353-354).
    The type locality of Florida fairy shrimp was lost to development, 
and the species is not known from other locations (Rogers 2002). It has 
not been reported in any collections since it was described. 
Petitioners allow that ``unless this species is discovered in new 
areas, it may already be extinct.'' Rogers (2002) also reports that 
``It is possible that D. floridanus is extinct, however, it may still 
exist in some undeveloped portions of Florida or other regions of the 
United States or possibly Cuba.'' NatureServe (2008) lists the species 
as ``possibly extinct,'' and IUCN lists the species as critically 
endangered, though this status was last assessed in 1996.
    The petition presented brief information suggesting that the 
species was threatened by two of the five listing factors (Factors A 
and D) in section 4 of the Act in an effort to identify threats that 
may be leading or have led to the decline of the Florida fairy shrimp. 
However, these factors are pertinent only in cases where the organism 
being proposed for listing is present and thus capable of being 
affected by any threats. Because the information presented by 
petitioners and in our files suggests the species is already extinct, 
it does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species under the Act (section 3(6) and 3(20), 
respectively). Therefore, an analysis of the five threat factors is not 
appropriate.
South Florida Rainbow Snake (Farancia erytrogramma seminola)
    Rainbow snakes are iridescent, glossy black above, with three red 
stripes. The ventor is red and/or yellow with three rows of black 
spots. In the South Florida rainbow snake, the ventral black spots 
coalesce to render the ventor predominantly black, except on the 
throat, and the middorsal red stripe is reduced to a dotted line due to 
invasion of black pigment. The largest of the three South Florida 
rainbow snakes ever reported was 131centitmeters (cm) (51.5 inches 
(in)) (Molar 1992, p. 251).
    Rainbow snakes are strongly aquatic in habit, seldom wandering far 
from water. The two South Florida rainbow snakes for which data are 
available were both collected in the water at night. The South Florida 
rainbow snake is known from one population in Fisheating Creek, which 
flows into the west side of Lake Okeechobee in Glades County, Florida, 
which lies approximately 250 km (150 mi) south of the nearest area 
known to support other species of rainbow snakes. This is an aquatic 
snake that has only been found in a freshwater stream with substantial 
aquatic vegetation. Fisheating Creek, its only known location, is a 
sluggish, small to moderate sized stream flowing through a cypress 
stand. During drought Fisheating Creek is reduced to a series of 
disconnected lakes (Molar 1992). Though the South Florida rainbow snake 
has only been found in creeks, it could possibly inhabit areas similar 
to other rainbow snakes (Florida Museum of Natural History 2000).
    Rainbow snakes are oviparous (egg-laying) and have been reported to 
lay clutches of 22 to 50 eggs. Adults feed primarily on eels (Anguilla 
rostrata) but aquatic amphibians may also be eaten. Nothing is known 
about the specific ecology of the South Florida rainbow snake (Molar 
1992, pp. 251-252).
    Only three specimens of the South Florida rainbow snake have ever 
been reported (one in 1949 and two in 1952), and only one of these 
specimens has been preserved. The Florida Museum of Natural History 
reports that several unsuccessful searches have been conducted for this 
snake since the 1950s (Florida Museum of Natural History 2000). 
Intensive collecting at Rainey Slough, a western tributary of 
Fisheating Creek, did not produce any rainbow snakes (S. Godley, 
personal communication). Molar (1992) classified the status of the 
species as ``undetermined.'' NatureServe (2008) classifies the 
subspecies as critically imperiled because of its very restricted 
geographic range, if it even exists, and because it is known from only 
one site without recent confirmation (most recent collection, 1952).
    The petition presented brief information suggesting that the 
subspecies was threatened by three of the five listing factors (Factors 
A, B, and D) in section 4 of the Act in an effort to identify threats 
that may be leading or have led to the decline of the South Florida 
rainbow snake. However, these factors are pertinent only in cases where 
the organism being proposed for listing is present and thus capable of 
being affected by any threats. Because the information presented by 
petitioners and in our files suggests the species is already extinct, 
it does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species under the Act (section 3(6) and 3(20), 
respectively). Therefore, an analysis of the five threat factors is not 
appropriate.
Ouachita Creekshell (Villosa arkansasensis)
    The Ouachita creekshell is a small mussel that seldom exceeds 50 mm 
(2 in) in length. Its' outline is ovate (egg shaped) or obovate (egg 
shaped with the

[[Page 62263]]

narrow end at the base). The valves are subinflated and solid. It is 
rounded anteriorly and somewhat pointed posteriorly. The ventral margin 
is curved, while the dorsal margin is rather rounded. The posterior 
ridge is low and rounded. The hinge ligament is short, and the umbos is 
not much swollen, and only slightly projected above the hingeline. The 
periostracum (the external, chitinlike covering of the shell) is dull 
to satiny, yellowish to brownish (but most often darker) with fine 
green rays over the entire surface. The left valve has two heavy, 
triangular pseudocardinal teeth about equal in size and two short 
lateral teeth. The right valve has two pseudocardinals, the posterior 
one chunky and the anterior one vestigial. The nacre (mother-of-pearl) 
is silvery white, and bluish, and iridescent posteriorly. Male shells 
are somewhat pointed with female shells more broadly rounded and 
truncated below the medial line. Mature females have a distinct 
constriction in the middle of the truncation (Arkansas Wildlife Action 
Plan 2005). Host fish include the rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum) 
and shadow bass (Ambloplites ariommus).
    The petition states that there are an estimated 6 to 20 populations 
of this mussel (NatureServe 2008). In Arkansas, this species is extant 
in the Poteau, Ouachita, and Saline River systems (Harris et. al. 
1997). In Oklahoma, this mussel occurs in the headwaters of the Little 
River (C. Mather pers. comm. cited in NatureServe 2008, Vaughn and 
Taylor 1999, Vaughn 2000, Galbraith et al. 2008), eight sites in the 
Glover River (Vaughn, 2000, 2003), eight sites in the Mountain Fork 
River (Spooner and Vaughn 2007), and potentially in the Kiamichi River.
    Historically, Ouachita creekshell was known from 23 streams and 
rivers in 2 States draining the Ouachita Mountains in the Red and 
Arkansas River basins (Davidson 2007, p. 9). Information in our files 
indicates the Ouachita creekshell is currently known to occur in 15 
streams and may occur in an additional 5 streams in the Ozark region 
(Johnson 1980; Davidson 2007), with sizable populations with ample 
evidence of recent recruitment and considered viable for several 
decades to come, occurring on the Little River, Glover River, Mountain 
Fork Little River, Irons Fork Ouachita River, Alum Fork Saline River, 
and the North Fork Saline River (Davidson 2007, pp. 28-29). Small 
populations are known to occur in the Ouachita River, Little Missouri 
River, and the Saline River in the Ouachita River drainage (Davidson 
2007, p. 29). Marginal populations are known to occur in the Kiamichi 
River, Fourche LaFave River, Poteau River, Middle Fork Saline River, 
Chances Creek, and Brushy Creek (Davidson 2007, p. 29). Due to limited 
survey data it is unknown whether Ouachita creekshell occur in five 
additional streams: (Big) Cedar Creek, Buffalo Creek, Cossatot River, 
Saline River in the Little River drainage and Terre Noire Creek. The 
Ouachita creekshell has been extirpated from three streams: South Fork 
Ouachita River, Caddo River, and South Fork Saline River.
    Historically, the Ouachita creekshell was widespread, but never 
locally abundant in many Ouachita Mountain streams (Davidson 2007, p. 
10). Quantitative historical abundance data for Ouachita creekshell are 
unknown, and a review of online museum collections seems to indicate 
that most collectors only kept representative voucher material (e.g., 
one or two specimens). The absence of substantial museum collections 
may be an artifact of infrequent encounters resulting from naturally 
low relative abundance or the difficulty associated with locating small 
mussels (Davidson 2007, p. 10).
    This regional endemic (species found only in the region) is 
restricted to headwater streams. It is considered critically imperiled 
in Oklahoma (S1S2) and imperiled in Arkansas (NatureServe 2008). It is 
ranked as special concern/vulnerable by the American Fisheries Society 
(Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review). There is some question 
as to the taxonomic status of this species based on recent phylogenetic 
analysis (McKay et al. 2009, Inoue 2009). The results suggest that, 
based on genetic similarities, V. arkansasensis may be a synonymous 
species with O. jacksoniana (southern hickorynut mussel) (Inoue 2009). 
The Service published a not substantial finding on a petition to list 
O. jacksoniana on March 23, 2010 (75 FR 13717), prior to receipt of the 
petition.
Crystal Darter (Crystallaria asprella)
    The crystal darter is a slender, cigar-shaped member of the perch 
family. It has a distinctly forked tail and pronounced snout. As one of 
the largest darters, it reaches up to an average of 130 millimeters 
(mm) (5.1 in) standard length (SL) (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, Page 
1983). The crystal darter is mostly translucent, although some cryptic 
coloration is present in the form of dark saddles along the back and 
mottling along the sides.
    Crystal darter habitat is described by Page (1983) as comprising 
large creeks and rivers with extensive clean sand and gravel raceways. 
Individuals generally inhabit waters deeper than 60 cm (23.6 in) with 
strong currents (Page 1983). The species is rarely collected when 
current velocities are lower than 32 cm/second (George et al. 1996), 
and its preference for fast-moving water makes sampling difficult. The 
species diet ranges from fly and caddisfly larvae to water mites and 
small crustaceans (Forbes 1880, Hatch 1998).
    Historically, the crystal darter was found within the Mississippi 
River basin from Wisconsin and Minnesota east to Ohio and south to 
Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Florida (Page 1983) and the Gulf slope in the 
Escambia, Mobile Bay, and Pearl River drainages (Page and Burr 1991). 
Crystal darters are considered rare, but the specific reasons for their 
rarity are poorly understood. Past approaches for sampling crystal 
darter populations in mid to large rivers have been relatively 
ineffective, leading to low catch rates that are generally not useful 
in producing population estimates, and little effort has been expended 
to specifically sample the species. Rather, gears have been deployed in 
habitats to generally characterize fish communities where crystal 
darters are coincidentally collected. Recently, new methodologies 
(e.g., Missouri Trawl, Herzog et al. 2005) have been developed to 
sample species such as crystal darters in large rivers that show 
promise for quantitatively assessing population status and 
demonstrating the species may be more common than previously thought 
(FWS 2009, p. 38).
    The species is presently known from large creeks and rivers in 15 
States. The population from the Elk River in West Virginia is 
sufficiently genetically and morphologically distinct that it has now 
been separated from the crystal darter group and is referred to as the 
diamond darter (Crystallaria cincotta) (Welsh and Wood 2008). The 
diamond darter is a candidate species (75 FR 69287) and has been found 
to be warranted for listing, but precluded by higher priority listing 
actions. For the purposes of this finding, we assess only the remainder 
of the crystal darter group.
Spotted Darter (Etheostoma maculatum)
    The spotted darter is a member of the Perch family (Percidae), a 
group characterized by the presence of a dorsal fin separated into two 
parts, one spiny and the other soft (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 1). 
Darters are smaller and more slender than other percids. Most darters, 
including those in the genus Etheostoma, have a vestigial swim bladder, 
which decreases buoyancy, allowing them to remain near the bottom with 
little effort (Evans and Page

[[Page 62264]]

2003, p. 64). Distinguishing morphological characteristics of the 
spotted darter include: laterally compressed body, subequal jaws, sharp 
snout, short pectoral fins, an absent/weak suborbital bar, and a 
rounded posterior edge of the caudal fin (Zorach and Raney 1967, p. 
300). They often exceed 60 millimeters (mm) (2.36 inches (in)) standard 
length (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 116). The opercle and belly are 
scaled, the cheek is slightly scaled to unscaled, and the nape and 
breast are unscaled (Page 1983, p. 100). Lateral line counts are 
usually 56 to 65 scales, and vertebrae number 37 to 39 (Kuehne and 
Barbour 1983, p. 117). Spotted darters are sexually dimorphic. Males 
have black-edged red spots on the body and a bluish-green breast that 
intensifies in color at spawning time. Females have dark spots on the 
body that are larger and more diffuse than the males (Keuhne and 
Barbour 1983, p. 116). Spotted darters superficially resemble 
bluebreast darters (E. camurum), but the two can be distinguished by 
the latter having a black margin on its soft dorsal, caudal, and anal 
fins (Stauffer et al. 1995, p. 304). Small spotted darters can resemble 
Tippecanoe darters (E. tippecanoe), but Tippecanoe darters have an 
incomplete lateral line (Stauffer et al. 1995, p. 304).
    The spotted darter was described as Etheostoma maculata by Kirtland 
(1841, pp. 276-277). Jordan and Eigenmann (1885, p. 71) amended the 
species epithet to maculatum to conform to the neuter gender of 
Etheostoma. The spotted darter was subsequently listed under the genera 
Etheostoma, Nothonotus, and Poecilichthys by various workers through 
the early 1950s. Bailey et al. (1954, pp. 139-141), and Bailey and 
Gosline (1955, pp. 6, 10) reduced the number of darter genera to three 
(Ammocrypta, Etheostoma, and Percina), placing the spotted darter in 
the subgenus Nothonotus. Three subspecies were subsequently recognized 
by Zorach and Raney (1967, p. 297): the spotted darter (Etheostoma 
maculatum maculatum) (Kirtland) in the Ohio River system including the 
Wabash and Green river systems, bloodfin darter (E. m. sanguifluum) 
(Cope) in the upper Cumberland River system below Cumberland Falls, and 
wounded darter (E. m. vulneratum) (Cope) in the upper Tennessee River 
system. These subspecies have since been elevated to distinct species 
within the genus Etheostoma, subgenus Nothonotus: E. maculatum (spotted 
darter), E. sanguifluum (bloodfin darter), and E. vulneratum (wounded 
darter) by Etnier and Williams (1989, p. 987).
    Spotted darters are habitat specialists that take advantage of 
their extremely laterally compressed body to live under and among 
large, heterogeneous, unembedded substrates in riffles and glides 
(Raney and Lachner 1939, pp. 157-159; Burr and Warren 1986, p. 306; 
Bowers et al. 1992, p. 19; Osier and Welsh 2007, p. 457; Kessler and 
Thorp 1993, p. 1090; Kessler et al. 1995, p. 368). They are associated 
with deeper water and larger rocks than similar species (Raney and 
Lachner 1939, p. 158; Kessler and Thorp 1993, pp. 1087-1089; Osier and 
Welsh 2007, p. 456). They typically do not tolerate silt or embedded 
substrates (Kessler and Thorp 1993, p. 1090; Osier and Welsh 2007, p. 
457).
    Spotted darters typically spawn in May and June (Raney and Lachner 
1939, p. 160; Weddle and Kessler 2008, p. 21; Ruble et al. 2008, 
Appendix 2). Raney and Lachner (1939, p. 159) found that spawning sites 
were spaced at least 120 centimeters (cm) (47.24 in) apart in the head 
of a riffle in water 15-60 cm (5.9-23.62 in) deep. Up to 350 adhesive 
pale yellow 2 mm (0.079 in) diameter eggs were deposited in tight 
wedge-shaped masses on the undersides of 90-275 cm (35.43-108.27 in) 
diameter flat rocks (Raney and Lachner 1939, p. 161). Weddle and 
Kessler (2008, p. 22) found that egg clump dimensions averaged 20 mm 
(0.79 in) long by 13 mm (0.51 in) wide and were deposited under rocks 
averaging 24.7 cm (9.72 in.) long and 18.2 cm (7.17 in) wide. 
Observations of up to five distinct egg size classes in females 
indicate that spotted darters spawn multiple times in a single season 
(Raney and Lachner 1939, p. 162; Weddle and Kessler 2008, p. 24). Male 
spotted darters guard the eggs while remaining mostly under or adjacent 
to the nest rock (Raney and Lachner 1939, p. 162). First spawning 
activity is reported to occur at 2 years for both males and females; 
males spawn through year 4 and females through year 5 (Raney and 
Lachner 1939, p. 164).
    The species' extremely pointed snout makes them well-adapted for 
picking macroinvertebrate prey from underneath rocks (Kessler et al. 
1995, p. 368). Macroinvertebrates, especially larval insects, comprise 
a large portion of their diet. Larval midges (Diptera, family 
Chironomidae), stoneflies (Plecoptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), 
mayflies (Ephemeroptera), and beetles (Coleoptera), as well as adult 
water mites (Hydracarina) are important food items (Raney and Lachner 
1939, p. 162; Hansen 1983, Appendix B; Kessler 1994, p. 29). Spotted 
darter eggs have been found in the stomachs of spotted darter adults 
(Raney and Lachner 1939, p. 162).
    The spotted darter historically occurred in the Ohio River drainage 
in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia. 
Spotted darters probably also occurred in other streams in the Ohio 
River basin with suitable habitat. Raney and Lachner (1939, p. 158) 
speculated that its presence had likely been overlooked by many 
collectors who had not thoroughly worked deeper riffles. In addition, 
small benthic fishes are difficult to collect in deeper water (Ohio 
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) 1988, pp. 4-10). Troutman (1981, 
p. 670) noted that there may be considerable variation in the numbers 
of spotted darters in individual populations from one year to another, 
although he did not discuss a cause for this phenomenon. These factors 
may help explain why spotted darters went undetected in the Elk, Blue, 
East Fork White, lower Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers until after 1975. 
Considering that many larger parent streams in the Ohio River Basin 
were extensively impounded and polluted beginning in the 1800's, 
degrading or eliminating spotted darter habitat (Ortmann 1909, pp. 90-
110; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1981; Trautman 1981, pp. 17-
24), it is reasonable to believe that the species also inhabited some 
of these parent streams historically but were extirpated prior to 
detection.
    Rangewide status assessments in the literature indicate that 
spotted darters are localized and uncommon (Kuehne and Barbour 1983, p. 
117; Page 1983, p. 100; Page and Burr 1991, p. 305). Although there is 
no rangewide systematic sampling to monitor distribution and status, a 
number of riverwide surveys have been conducted in some basins in some 
years.
    The spotted darter is considered extant in the mainstem Ohio River 
(PA) and in the Allegheny (NY, PA), Muskingum (OH), Scioto (OH), Blue 
(IN), Wabash (IN), Green (KY), and Kanawha (WV) river systems. Of the 
37 known streams that historically supported or currently support 
spotted darters, the species is likely extant in 24, likely extirpated 
in 12, and potentially extirpated in 1. Of the 24 streams that 
currently support spotted darters, populations are likely stable or 
expanding in 9 and declining or vulnerable in 4. Recent trends are 
unknown in the remaining 11 streams with extant populations. Fourteen 
of the 24 extant populations were discovered after 1975, and 9 of these 
14 were discovered after 1990. Given the recent discoveries of new 
populations of

[[Page 62265]]

spotted darters, and considering the potential difficulties in 
collecting them, it is reasonable to believe that they may also be 
present, but have gone unrecorded, in other streams within the 
aforementioned river systems.
Florida Bog Frog (Rana okaloosae)
    The Florida bog frog is a small ranid frog endemic to three 
counties in western Florida. It is the smallest member of its genus in 
North America. The bog frog is restricted to a variety of seepage 
habitats, relatively stable streams and seeps that receive their water 
via percolation through adjacent, deep sandy uplands. It is associated 
with black titi, beds of sphagnum moss, and Atlantic white cedar. 
Breeding occurs from April to August, and the species is syntopic 
(sharing the same habitat within the same geographic range) with Rana 
clamitans, Acris grylus, and sometimes Hyla andersonii. Eggs are laid 
in thin masses at the water surface in the same habitat occupied by 
adults, with some tadpoles overwintering (Molar 1985, 1992, 1993). The 
species has been observed eating moths at night and likely predators 
include cottonmouths (Agkistrodon piscivorus) and southern water snakes 
(Nerodia fasciata).
    The species was not discovered until 1982 and was formally 
described in 1985 (Molar 1985 as cited in Jackson 2004, p. ii). Of 
approximately 57 known sites, all but 5 are located in roughly the 
western third of EAFB, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties, Florida. Two 
highly disjunct sites occur in the northeastern part of EAFB, in Walton 
County, in Titi Creek, a tributary of the Yellow River via the Shoal 
River. The remaining three sites are on private lands on the north side 
of the Yellow River, across from EAFB (Jackson 2004, p. ii).
    The species is included in Eglin's Threatened and Endangered 
Species Component Plan to the Integrated Natural Resource Management 
Plan (2006). Eglin's overall ecosystem management benefits the species. 
All mission activities are required to avoid disturbing wetlands, 
including the creeks inhabited by bog frogs.
    The petition cites NatureServe (2008) as listing the species as 
imperiled in Florida, and IUCN considers the species ``Vulnerable''.
Greensboro Burrowing Crayfish (Cambarus catagius)
    According to information in our files, this species is a North 
Carolina endemic known from Davidson, Guilford, Montgomery, and 
Randolph Counties. In total 16 localities are known, including 11 in 
the Haw River subdrainage of the Cape Fear River basin and 5 localities 
in the central Yadkin-Pee Dee River drainage (McGrath 1994, pp. 346-
347). This species is a primary burrower found in damp, open areas, 
which are sometimes far removed from surface moisture or standing 
water. In fact, most locations for this species have been recorded in 
urban and suburban yards, which are usually grassed areas that were 
cleared at some point in the past (McGrath 1994, p. 346). Little is 
currently known about population densities or habitat requirements of 
this narrow endemic, but McGrath (1994, p. 348) noted, ``given the 
types of habitats that support the species, the numerous locations in 
which the species was found, the abundance of burrowing activity at 
those locations, and the potential for the species to be present in 
uninvestigated sites, the species may be doing well.''
    The State of North Carolina considers this crayfish to be a Species 
of Special Concern. It was a Federal category 2 candidate species until 
that list was abolished in 1996. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN 
and as threatened by the American Fisheries Society. NatureServe (2008) 
ranks the species as imperiled and believes that in the short term, 
this species has a stable population.
Blood River Crayfish (Orconectes burri)
    Taylor and Schuster (2004, pp. 143-145) provided a detailed 
description of the morphological characters and life appearance of the 
Blood River crayfish. The base color of the dorsal and lateral surfaces 
of the chelae (claws), carapace (platelike covering of the head and 
anterior half of the body), and abdomen is light brown to tan, with 
light to dark brown mottling (spots). The dorsal surface of the 
carapace has a wide, dark-brown patch anterior to the cervical groove 
(semicircular groove that generally divides the carapace in half) and a 
wide, U-shaped dark saddle centered at the caudal (posterior) margin 
that extends anteriorly along the lateral surface of the carapace. The 
fingers of the chelae (claws) have orange tips bordered by wide 
subdistal black bands. The large knobs at the base of the dactyl (mesal 
or thumblike part of the claw) are dark blue to black. The maximum 
known size for the species is 64.5 millimeters (2.54 inches).
    The Blood River crayfish was not officially described until 1998 
(Taylor and Sabaj 1998, pp. 645-652). Similar species include O. 
bisectus (Crittenden crayfish), O. jeffersoni (Louisville crayfish), O. 
margorectus (Livingston crayfish), O. rafinesquei (Rough River 
crayfish), O. sanbornii (Sanborn's crayfish), and O. tricuspis (Western 
Highland crayfish); though the distribution of these species is not 
known to overlap that of the Blood River crayfish. The Blood River 
crayfish differs from all of these species in possessing a central 
projection (typically the longest terminal projection of the gonopod) 
with a tip bent at a 90[deg] angle to the main shaft of the gonopod and 
which overhangs the mesial process (terminal process of the gonopod, 
typically shorter than the central projection). The strongly mottled 
appearance is also atypical for most other Kentucky species of 
Orconectes (Taylor and Schuster 2004, p. 145).
    According to Taylor and Schuster (2004, pp. 145-146), the Blood 
River crayfish occurs in small to medium-sized creeks ranging in width 
from 3 to 10 meters (m) (5 to 33 feet (ft)) with substrates consisting 
of sand and gravel. The species typically inhabits woody debris piles 
or woody vegetation root masses along stream margins, especially in 
areas with current. According to Taylor and Schuster (2004), very 
little is known about the life history of O. burri. Form I males have 
been collected in March, April, May, and October. Ovigerous (egg-
carrying) females were observed for the first time in April 2008 (Ryan 
Evans, Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission [KSNPC], personal 
communication, 2008). Most collections of O. burri have contained two 
distinct year classes, suggesting that the species has a 2-year life 
cycle (Taylor and Sabaj 1998, pp. 645-652). The Blood River crayfish 
has been found sympatrically with two other crayfish species, Cambarus 
diogenes (devil crayfish) and Procambarus acutus (White River crayfish) 
(Taylor and Schuster 2004, p. 146; Ryan Evans, KSNPC, personal 
communication, 2008). Detailed biological information is unavailable 
for O. burri, but the species is likely similar to most other Kentucky 
crayfishes with respect to longevity (usually 2 to 3 years), diet 
(opportunistic omnivores), and life cycle.
    The species is endemic to the Blood River drainage, a Tennessee 
River tributary in western Kentucky and northwest Tennessee (Taylor and 
Schuster 2004, p. 145). Little is known regarding the historical 
distribution of the species, but is assumed that the species occupied 
the same stream drainages in which it now occurs (Guenter Schuster, 
Eastern Kentucky University (EKU), personal communication, 2008). The 
Blood River originates in Henry County, Tennessee, and flows 
northeasterly into Kentucky where it empties into Kentucky Lake

[[Page 62266]]

(Tennessee River). Within Kentucky, the range of O. burri is contained 
entirely within the boundaries of Calloway County, where the species is 
known from the Blood River mainstem and seven of its tributaries: 
Wildcat Creek (the type locality), Panther Creek, McCullough Fork, 
Goose Creek, Beechy Creek, Grindstone Creek, and Lax Creek (Taylor and 
Schuster 2004, p. 145; Ryan Evans, KSNPC, personal communication, 
2008). Within Tennessee, the species has been recorded from the North 
Fork Blood River and Middle Fork Blood River. Exhaustive collecting in 
the lower Tennessee River system of western Tennessee and Kentucky by 
Taylor and Sabaj (1998, p. 649) and a search of holdings in the 
National Museum of Natural History failed to document the presence of 
the species outside of the Blood River drainage.
    Surveys conducted by Taylor and Sabaj (1998) in 1996 revealed that 
O. burri was moderately abundant in the Blood River and several of its 
tributaries in western Tennessee and Kentucky. Recent surveys by KSNPC 
during April, May, and June of 2008 confirmed the species' presence at 
the four previously reported Kentucky sites and recorded O. burri from 
six new Kentucky sites: (1) Blood River at the KY 121 bridge crossing; 
(2) Panther Creek at the KY 280 bridge crossing; (3) Goose Creek at the 
KY 280 bridge crossing; (4) Grindstone Creek at the KY 444 bridge 
crossing; (5) Wildcat Creek at the Ralph Wright Road bridge crossing; 
and (6) Lax Creek at the State Line Road bridge crossing (Ryan Evans, 
KSNPC, personal communication, 2008; M. Floyd, USFWS, personal 
observation, 2008). Collections were made using a standard seine (3.4 x 
1.8 m (11 x 6 ft) with 0.3 cm (0.1 in) mesh), and approximately 15-20 
seine hauls or kicks were made at each site in areas with suitable 
habitat (primarily woody debris piles or submerged tree roots). The 
species was observed at 12 of 14 sites (the species was not observed at 
2 sites in the Sugar Creek basin), and catch rates ranged from a low of 
0.176 individuals per seine effort at Lax Creek to a high of 2.73 
individuals per effort at Grindstone Creek. The Blood River crayfish 
was the dominant crayfish at all sites, averaging 82.5 percent (range = 
62.5 to 100 percent) of all crayfish individuals at each site. The 
species is currently listed as Threatened in Kentucky by KSNPC (KSNPC 
2005), but this designation may be modified based on the species' 
current abundance and discovery of new populations (Ryan Evans, KSNPC, 
pers. comm. 2008).

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species 
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endanged and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be 
endangered or threatened due to one or more of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual 
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no 
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If 
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may 
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat 
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the 
risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant 
listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are defined by the 
Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The 
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the 
species is likely affected could suffice. The mere identification of 
factors that could affect a species negatively may not be sufficient to 
compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information must 
contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be 
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species 
may meet the definition of a ``threatened species:'' or an ``endangered 
species'' under the Act.
    In making this 90-day finding we evaluated whether information 
regarding threats to the nine species that we consider listable 
entities (i.e., taxonomically valid and not considered extinct), as 
presented in the petition and other information available in our files 
is substantial, thereby indicating that listing any of the species in 
the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation of this 
information is presented below. The intensity of our review of the 
species varied depending on the amount of information presented in the 
petition and that amount of information available in our files.

Sarah's Hydroptila Caddisfly (Hydroptila sarahae)

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition (p. 612) cites NatureServe (2008) stating ``anything 
that adversely affects water quality, such as pollution, siltation or 
degradation of surrounding habitat would be a threat to this species.'' 
However, it provides no information on actual threats to the species 
under this factor.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We have no evidence in our files that this species is facing 
threats under this factor. The petition (p. 612) states that the 
species is known from 4 locations on EAFB, but information in our files 
shows that it is actually extant at 11 locations on the installation. 
EAFB is managed under an Integrated Natural Resource Plan (INRMP) 
(Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 2006) that was 
reviewed by and approved by the Service and the Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Conservation Commission and that is protective of water 
quality, and the steepheads, spring runs, and creeks where this species 
occurs. Eglin's overall ecosystem management benefits the species. All 
mission activities are required to avoid disturbing wetlands, including 
the creeks inhabited by this species. In addition, the Service has 
partnered with EAFB and conducts routine biological, chemical, and 
physical habitat assessments of aquatic environments in order to assist 
with conservation efforts (SAIC 2006, p. 1-5). Therefore, we find that 
the petition and information readily available in our files do not 
provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate 
that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the species' habitat or range may present a threat to 
Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly such that the petitioned action may be 
warranted.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not

[[Page 62267]]

assert it is a threat. We have no information in our files to indicate 
this is a threat. Therefore, we find that the petition and information 
readily available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may present a threat 
to Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly such that the petitioned action may be 
warranted.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not assert it is a threat. We have no information in our files to 
indicate this is a threat. Therefore, we find that the petition and 
information readily available in our files do not provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that disease or 
predation may present a threat to Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly such 
that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition (p. 612) states, ``It is unknown if it is 
appropriately protected from activities that would degrade water 
quality and eliminate the species.''
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We have no information in our files indicating the species is 
threatened by the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Water 
quality on EAFB is protected in part through an approved INRMP (SAIC 
2010, pp. 7-55 through 7-60). EAFB is also subject to the Federal Clean 
Water Act of 1972 and State water quality regulations. The Service has 
partnered with EAFB and conducts routine biological, chemical, and 
physical habitat assessments of aquatic environments in order to assist 
with conservation efforts (SAIC 2010, pp. 1-5). The protections in 
place through the INRMP, Clean Water Act, and State regulations appear 
to be adequately protecing Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly from poor water 
quality. Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily 
available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms may present a threat to Sarah's hydroptila 
caddisfly such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Factor E. Other Naturalor Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' 
Continued Existence

    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not assert it is a threat. We have no information in our files to 
indicate this is a threat. Therefore, we find that the petition and 
information readily available in our files do not provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that other natural or 
manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence may present 
a threat to Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly such that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.

Rogue Creek Hydroptila Caddisfly (Hydroptila okaloosa)

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition (p. 611), citing NatureServe (2008), states, ``Because 
it is dependent on clean water, this caddisfly is threatened by any 
form of pollution, siltation or degradation of surrounding habitat.'' 
However, the petition fails to cite any specific instance of habitat 
degradation within the range of the Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly, 
or provide any information that the caddisfly is negatively affected by 
hatitat degredation.
Evaluation of Information Provided in Petition and Available in Service 
Files
    As with Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly, we have no evidence in our 
files that this species is facing threats under this factor. This 
species is known from eight locations on EAFB, all of which are managed 
under the installation's INRMP (SAIC 2006). In addition, the Service 
has partnered with EAFB and conducts routine biological, chemical, and 
physical habitat assessments of aquatic environments in order to assist 
with conservation efforts (SAIC 2010, pp. 1-5). Therefore, we find that 
the petition and information readily available in our files do not 
provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate 
that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the species' habitat or range may present a threat to 
the Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly such that the petitioned action 
may be warranted.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not assert it is a threat. We have no information in our files to 
indicate this is a threat. Therefore, we find that the petition and 
information readily available in our files do not provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may 
present a threat to the Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly such that the 
petitioned action may be warranted.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not assert it is a threat. We have no information in our files to 
indicate this is a threat. Therefore, we find that the petition and 
information readily available in our files do not provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that disease or 
predation may present a threat to the Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly 
such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition (p. 611) states that the species is found only on 
EAFB, and that it is ``unknown if it is appropriately protected from 
activities that would degrade water quality and eliminate the 
species.''
Evaluation of Information Provided in Petition and Available in Service 
Files
    We have no information in our files indicating the species is 
threatened by the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The 
INRMP and Federal and State water quality laws and regulations are 
protective of water quality, and the steepheads, spring runs, and 
creeks where this species occurs. EAFB's overall ecosystem management 
benefits the species. All mission activities are required to avoid 
disturbing wetlands, including the creeks inhabited by this species. 
Water quality on EAFB is also protected in part through an approved 
INRMP (SAIC 2006, pp. 7-55 through 7-60). EAFB is also subject to the 
Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 and State water quality regulations. 
The Service has partnered with EAFB and conducts routine biological, 
chemical, and physical habitat assessments of aquatic environments in 
order to assist with conservation efforts (SAIC 2006, pp. 1-5). The 
protections in place through the INRMP, Clean Water Act, and State 
regulations appear to be adequately

[[Page 62268]]

protecting the Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly from poor water 
quality. Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily 
available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms may present a threat to the Rogue Creek 
hydroptila caddisfly such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' 
Continued Existence

    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not assert it is a threat. We have no information in our files to 
indicate this is a threat. Therefore, we find that the petition and 
information readily available in our files do not provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that other natural or 
manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence may present 
a threat to the Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly such that the 
petitioned action may be warranted.

Florida Brown Checkered Summer Sedge (Polycentropus floridensis)

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states according to NatureServe (2008), the habitat of 
this species is ``subject to pollution, siltation, and other forms of 
environmental degradation.'' However, the Petition also notes, based on 
Rasmussen et al. (2008) that the species is believed to be relatively 
stable `as long as stream habitats supporting populations on EAFB are 
protected.''
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We have no information in our files that this species is facing 
threats under this factor. This species' locations on EAFB are managed 
under the installation's INRMP (SAIC 2006). In addition, the Service 
has partnered with EAFB and conducts routine biological, chemical, and 
physical habitat assessments of aquatic environments in order to assist 
with conservation efforts (SAIC 2006, pp. 1-5). Therefore, we find that 
the petition and information readily available in our files do not 
provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate 
that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the species' habitat or range may present a threat to 
the Florida brown checkered summer sedge such that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not assert it is a threat. We have no information in our files to 
indicate this is a threat. Therefore, we find that the petition and 
information readily available in our files do not provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may 
present a threat to the Florida brown checkered summer sedge such that 
the petitioned action may be warranted.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not assert it is a threat. We have no information in our files to 
indicate this is a threat. Therefore, we find that the petition and 
information readily available in our files do not provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that disease or 
predation may present a threat to the Florida brown checkered summer 
sedge such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that no existing regulatory mechanisms protect 
this species, and despite its stability on EAFB, that issues of 
national security are prioritized over species protection.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We have no information in our files that issues of national 
security are negatively affecting the species or will do so in the 
fore