[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59836-59862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24633]
[[Page 59835]]
Vol. 76
Tuesday,
No. 187
September 27, 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
Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 59836]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0049; MO 92210-0-0009]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Partial 90-Day
Finding on a Petition To List 404 Species in the Southeastern United
States as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review,
we find that for 374 of the 404 species, the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this
notice, we are initiating a status review of the 374 species to
determine if listing is warranted. To ensure that the review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information
regarding these 374 species. Based on the status reviews, we will issue
12-month findings on the petition, which will address whether the
petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of
the Act. Of the 30 other species in the petition, 1 species--Alabama
shad--has had a 90-day finding published by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and 18 species are already on the Service's list of
candidate species or are presently the subject of proposed rules to
list. We have not yet made a finding on the remaining 11 species, but
anticipate doing so no later than September 30, 2011.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct a status review, we request
that we receive information on or before November 28, 2011. The
deadline for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time on this date. After November 28, 2011, you must submit
information directly to the Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note that we may not be able
to address or incorporate information that we receive after the above
requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter Docket No.
FWS-R4-ES-2011-0049, which is the docket number for this action. Then
click on the Search button.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2011-0049; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information
received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we
will post any personal information you provide us (see Request for
Information section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Mizzi, Chief, Division of
Endangered Species, Ecological Services, Southeast Regional Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30345;
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:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that a species may be warranted for listing, we
are required to promptly review the status of the species (status
review). For the status reviews to be complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial information, we request information
on the 374 species from governmental agencies, Native American tribes,
the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties
concerning the status of the species. We seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(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.
(3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and
their habitat.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing any of these
species is warranted, it is our intent to propose critical habitat
under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we
also request data and information on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range
currently occupied by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently found;
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species that are ``essential for the conservation of the species;'' and
(5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for
designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such
habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles, other supporting publications, or data) to
allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you
include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning the status reviews or
the 404 species by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission--including any personal
[[Page 59837]]
identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. If your
submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy
submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours,
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Ecological Services
Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
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. 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, we are required to
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently
summarize 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 (referred to below as the CBD petition) to
list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species from the southeastern
United States as endangered or threatened species and to designate
critical habitat concurrent with listing under the Act. The petition
clearly identified itself as a petition, was dated, and included the
identification information required at 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, the Southeast Region of the
Service, to which the petition had been assigned, provided additional
formal written acknowledgement of receipt of the petition.
The 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 (1) to demonstrably secure (5). 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
its involvement in formulation of the petition. The Council was
contacted by CBD, which solicited the Council's involvement in the
preparation of the subject petition. The Southeastern Fishes Council's
members provided expertise in review of the CBD's 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 petition's inclusion of a large
number of freshwater mollusks. 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 CBD submitted supplemental comments and information on October
6, 2010, in support of protecting the Panama City crayfish (Procambarus
econfinae) under the Act. On December 13, 2010, we received a second
petition, from Wild South, to list the Carolina hemlock (Tsuga
caroliniana), as endangered and to designate its critical habitat. We
acknowledged receipt of the petition in a letter dated December 20,
2010, and identified it as a second petition for the same species' as
Tsuga caroliniana was one of the species identified in the CBD
petition.
The CBD 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.
The petition included 18 species that were already on the Service's
list of candidate species at the time of receipt of the petition,
including five that have since been proposed to be listed as
endangered. A candidate species is one for which we have on file
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to
support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which
preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher
priority listing actions. We may identify a species as a candidate for
listing based on an evaluation of its status that we conducted on our
own initiative, or as a result of making a finding on a petition to
list a species that listing is warranted but precluded by other higher
priority listing actions. Of the 404 species that are the subjects of
the petition, 18 had already been placed on the candidate list as a
result of our own review and evaluation. These include: sicklefin
redhorse (Moxostoma sp. 2 (the
[[Page 59838]]
2 refers to one of two species within the genus that have not yet been
officially classified)), laurel dace (Phoxinus saylori) ((currently
proposed for listing as endangered (June 24, 2011; 75 FR 36035)),
spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) ((currently proposed for listing
as endangered (January 19, 2011; 76 FR 3392)), narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia
escambia), round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata), southern sandshell
(Hamiota australis), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus) ((currently
proposed for listing as endangered (January 19, 2011; 76 FR 3392)),
fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum), southern kidneyshell
(Ptychobranchus jonesi), rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica),
tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei), Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis),
rayed bean (Villosa fabalis) ((currently proposed for listing as
endangered (November 2, 2010; 75 FR 67552)), black mudalia (Elimia
melanoides), Coleman cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis),
Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis), and Yadkin River
goldenrod (Solidago plumosa). We proposed to list the snuffbox
(Epioblasma triquetra) as endangered on November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67552).
We conduct a review of all candidate species annually to ensure
that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and reevaluate
the relative listing priority number assigned to each species. We also
evaluate the need to emergency list any of these species, particularly
species with high priorities. Through this annual review we also add
new candidate species and remove those that no longer warrant listing.
This review and reevaluation ensure that we focus conservation efforts
on those species at greatest risk first.
Because we have already made the equivalent of a 90-day and a 12-
month finding on the species listed above, and they have already been
identified as warranting listing, including five that we have proposed
to list as endangered, we find the petition provides substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that these species may
be warranted for listing.
The CBD petition includes one species, the Alabama shad (Alosa
alabamae), that falls under the jurisdiction of the NMFS. According to
the 1974 Memorandum of Understanding regarding jurisdictional
responsibilities and listing procedures between the Service and NMFS,
the NMFS has jurisdiction over species which either (1) Reside the
majority portion of their lifetimes in marine waters, or (2) are
species which spend part of their lifetimes in estuarine waters, if the
majority portion of the remaining time (the time which is not spent in
estuarine waters) is spent in marine waters. Based on this definition,
NMFS has jurisdiction for the Alabama shad, and, accordingly, NMFS
provided a letter to the Service, dated April 30, 2010, proposing to
evaluate the subject petition, for the Alabama shad only, for the
purpose of the 90-day finding and any required subsequent listing
action. The NMFS published the 90-day finding for the Alabama shad on
February 17, 2011 (76 FR 9320), and in that document announced its
finding that the petition did not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for the
Alabama shad.
Previous Federal Actions
A large number of the petitioned species have previously been
considered for listing under the Act and were at one time or another
assigned status as a category 1, 2, or 3C candidate species. A category
1 candidate species was one for which the Service had substantial
information on hand to support the biological appropriateness of
proposing to list as endangered or threatened, and for which
development and publication of such a proposal was anticipated. A
category 2 candidate species was one for which there was some evidence
of vulnerability, but for which additional biological information was
needed to support a proposed rule to list as endangered or threatened.
A category 3C candidate was one that was proven to be more widespread
than was previously believed and/or those that were not subject to any
identifiable threats. These categories were discontinued in 1996
(December 5, 1996; 61 FR 64481) in favor of maintaining a list that
only represented those species for which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a
proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation
and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing
actions.
The Service was previously petitioned to list two of the subject
petitioned species, the Say's spiketail dragonfly (February 15, 1994)
and the orangefin madtom (October 6, 1983), as endangered species. We
published 90-day findings for Say's spiketail dragonfly on October 26,
1994 (59 FR 53776), and the orangefin madtom on January 16, 1984 (49 FR
1919), respectively, and 12-month findings on July 17, 1995 (60 FR
36380), and July 18, 1985 (50 FR 29238), respectively. Similarly, we
previously proposed to list as endangered the Barrens topminnow
(December 30, 1977; 42 FR 65209). However, that proposal was never
finalized.
Table 1--Previous Federal Register Notices Addressing the Petitioned Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR Citation Publication date Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74 FR 57804............................. 11/9/2009.................. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants (ETWP): Review of Native Species
That Are Candidates for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice
on Findings on Resubmitted Petitions;
Annual Description of Progress on
Listing Actions; Proposed Rule.
61 FR 64481............................. 12/5/1996.................. ETWP; Notice of Final Decision on
Identification of Candidates for Listing
as Endangered or Threatened.
61 FR 7596.............................. 02/28/1996................. ETWP; Review of Plant and Animal Taxa
That Are Candidates for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species;
Proposed Rule.
60 FR 36380............................. 7/17/1995.................. ETWP; 12-Month Finding for a Petition To
List the Say's Spiketail Dragonfly as
Endangered.
59 FR 58982............................. 11/15/1994................. ETWP; Animal Candidate Review for Listing
as Endangered or Threatened Species;
Notice of Review.
59 FR 53776............................. 10/26/1994................. ETWP; 90-Day Finding for a Petition To
List the Say's Spiketail Dragonfly as
Endangered.
58 FR 51144............................. 9/30/1993.................. ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice
of Review.
56 FR 58664............................. 11/21/1991................. ETWP; Annual Description of Progress on
Listing Actions and Findings on Recycled
Petitions.
56 FR 58804............................. 11/21/1991................. ETWP; Review of Animal Taxa for Listing
as Endangered or Threatened Species;
Notice of Review.
55 FR 17475............................. 4/25/1990.................. ETWP; Annual Description of Progress on
Listing Actions and Findings on Recycled
Petitions.
[[Page 59839]]
55 FR 6184.............................. 2/21/1990.................. ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice
of Review.
54 FR 554............................... 1/6/1989................... ETWP; Review of Animal Taxa for Listing
as Endangered or Threatened Species;
Notice of Review.
53 FR 52746............................. 12/29/1988................. ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
Description of Progress on Listing
Actions.
53 FR 25511............................. 7/7/1988................... ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
Description of Progress on Listing
Actions.
52 FR 24312............................. 6/30/1987.................. ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
Description of Progress on Listing
Actions.
51 FR 996............................... 1/09/1986.................. ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
Description of Progress on Listing
Actions.
50 FR 39526............................. 9/27/1985.................. ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice
of Review.
50 FR 37958............................. 9/18/1985.................. ETWP; Review of Vertebrate Wildlife.
50 FR 29238............................. 7/18/1985.................. 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List
the Orangefin Madtom.
50 FR 19761............................. 5/10/1985.................. ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
Description of Progress on Listing
Actions.
49 FR 21664............................. 5/22/1984.................. ETWP; Review of Invertebrate Wildlife for
Listing as Endangered or Threatened
Species.
49 FR 2485.............................. 1/20/1984.................. ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
Description of Progress on Listing
Actions.
49 FR 1919.............................. 1/16/1984.................. ETWP; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To
List the Orangefin Madtom.
48 FR 53640............................. 11/28/1983................. ETWP; Supplement to Review of Plant Taxa
for Listing as Endangered or Threatened
Species.
47 FR 58454............................. 12/30/1982................. ETWP; Review of Vertebrate Wildlife for
Listing as Endangered or Threatened
Species; Notice of Review.
45 FR 82480............................. 12/15/1980................. ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice
of Review.
44 FR 70796............................. 12/10/1979................. ETWP; Notice of Withdrawal of That
Portion of Our June 16, 1976, Proposed
Rule That Has Not Yet Been Finalized.
44 FR 44418............................. 7/27/1979.................. ETWP; Reproposal of Critical Habitat for
the Barrens Topminnow.
44 FR 12382............................. 3/6/1979................... ETWP; Withdrawal of Proposed Critical
Habitat for the Barrens Topminnow.
43 FR 21702............................. 5/19/1978.................. ETWP; Proposed Endangered Status and
Critical Habitat for Two Species of
Turtles (Key Mud Turtle and Plymouth Red-
bellied Turtle).
43 FR 17909............................. 4/26/1978.................. ETWP; Final Rule and Summary of General
Comments Received in Response to a
Proposal To List Some 1700 U.S. Vascular
Plants.
42 FR 65209............................. 12/30/1977................. ETWP; Proposed Endangered Status for the
Barrens Topminnow.
41 FR 24524............................. 6/16/1976.................. ETWP; Proposed Endangered Status for Some
1700 U.S. Vascular Plants.
40 FR 27824............................. 7/1/1975................... Acceptance of Smithsonian Report As a
Petition To List Taxa Named Therein
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
Intention To Review the Status of Those
Plants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Information
The petition identified 404 aquatic, riparian, and 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 non-vascular plants, 13 reptiles, 44 snails, 8 stoneflies,
and 76 vascular plants. Of these 404 species, 374 species are addressed
in this finding (listed in Table 2 in the Summary of Threats as
Identified in the Petition section below). We have not yet made a
finding on the following 11 species: South Florida rainbow snake
(Farancia erytrogramma seminola), Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly
(Hydroptila sarahae), Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly (Hydroptila
okaloosa), Florida brown checkered summer sedge (Polycentropus
floridensis), Florida fairy shrimp (Dexteria floridana), 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 nature of this petition finding, that is, the large number of
species evaluated, necessitates our limiting a discussion of species
information to a general one; only where there is a clarification
necessary do we provide specific species information below.
The petition identified 15 amphibians and requested that they be
added to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List).
Thirteen of these are subjects of this finding, including the
following: Streamside salamander (Ambystoma barbouri), one-toed
amphiuma (Amphiuma pholeter), hellbender (Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis), Cumberland dusky salamander (Desmognathus abditus),
seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus), Chamberlain's dwarf
salamander (Eurycea chamberlaini), Oklahoma salamander (Eurycea
tynerensis), Tennessee cave salamander (Gyrinophilus palleucus), West
Virginia spring salamander (Gyrinophilus subterraneus), Georgia blind
salamander (Eurycea wallacei, formerly known as, and identified by
petitioners as, Haideotriton wallacei), Neuse River waterdog (Necturus
lewisi), Gulf hammock dwarf siren (Pseudobranchus striatus
lustricolus), and patch-nosed salamander (Urspelerpes brucei). The
Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) is already on the
Service's candidate species list. The seepage salamander, Oklahoma
salamander, Tennessee cave salamander, West Virginia Spring salamander,
Georgia blind salamander, Neuse River waterdog, hellbender, and Gulf
hammock dwarf siren were previous C2 candidates for Federal listing,
until that category was discontinued in 1996.
Chamberlain's dwarf salamander is given a NatureServe global
ranking of G5; however, its status in Georgia is S1, indicating it is
considered critically imperiled in that State. The streamside
salamander is given the G4 conservation status by NatureServe; however,
it is considered critically imperiled (S1) in West Virginia, imperiled
(S2) in Tennessee, and vulnerable (S3) in Indiana. The one-toed
amphiuma maintains a global G3 ranking by NatureServe; however, it is
also considered critically imperiled by NatureServe in Mississippi,
Alabama,
[[Page 59840]]
and Georgia, and vulnerable in Florida. The Tennessee cave salamander
maintains a NatureServe global ranking of G2 with State rankings of S2
(AL and TN) and S1 (GA). The hellbender maintains a NatureServe global
ranking of G3. Its State status ranges from S1 to S3. The subspecies
bishopi, or Ozark hellbender, was proposed for Federal listing as
endangered on September 8, 2010 (75 FR 54561). The Cumberland dusky
salamander and Georgia blind salamander each have a NatureServe
conservation status of imperiled (G2), with State rankings varying from
possibly extirpated, to critically imperiled, to imperiled. The seepage
salamander, Oklahoma salamander, and Neuse River waterdog each have a
NatureServe global conservation ranking of G3, with individual State
rankings of S1 to S3. The West Virginia spring salamander and patch-
nosed salamander each have a NatureServe conservation ranking of G1.
The Gulf hammock dwarf siren is given a NatureServe global ranking of
T1. The dwarf siren has not been documented since its description in
1951.
The petition identified six amphipods and requested that they be
added to the List, including the following: Florida cave amphipod
(Crangonyx grandimanus), Hobbs cave amphipod (Crangonyx hobbsi),
Cooper's cave amphipod (Stygobromus cooperi), tidewater amphipod
(Stygobromus indentatus), Morrison's cave amphipod (Stygobromus
morrisoni), and minute cave amphipod (Stygobromus parvus).
These six amphipods are each assigned a NatureServe Global ranking
of either G2 or G3, indicating they are considered imperiled or
vulnerable across their entire range. Cooper's cave amphipod, tidewater
amphipod, Morrison's cave amphipod and the minute cave amphipod were
each previous Service category 2 candidate species for listing (species
for which there was some evidence of vulnerability, but for which
additional biological information was needed to support a proposed rule
to list as endangered or threatened).
The petition identified 18 beetles and requested that they be added
to the List. Seventeen of these are included in this finding, including
the following: Cobblestone tiger beetle (Cincindela marginipennis),
Avernus cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus avernus), Little Kennedy cave
beetle (Pseudanophthalmus cordicollis), New River Valley cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus egberti), Cumberland Gap cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus hirsutus), Hubbard's cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus
hubbardi), Hubricht's cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus hubrichti),
Crossroad's cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus intersectus), Madden's cave
beetle (Pseudanophthalmus limicola), Dry Fork Valley cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus montanus), Natural Bridge cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus pontis), South Branch Valley cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus potomaca), overlooked cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus
praetermissus), Saint Paul cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus sanctipauli),
silken cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus sericus), Thomas's cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus thomasi), and Maiden Spring cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus virginicus). The Coleman's cave beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis) is already a Federal candidate
species.
These cave beetles are locally endemic to small cave systems in
Virginia, West Virginia, and Tennessee. Sixteen of them are afforded a
NatureServe ranking of G1, with a population size of 1,000 or fewer,
and many have not been documented since their description. One cave
beetle, the South Branch Valley cave beetle, has a slightly wider range
and is afforded a NatureServe ranking of G3. All of these beetles were
previous category 2 candidates for Federal listing, until that category
was discontinued in 1996.
The petition identified three birds and requested that they be
added to the List, including the following: MacGillivray's seaside
sparrow (Ammodrammus maritimus macgillivraii), Florida sandhill crane
(Grus canadensis pratensis), and black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis).
MacGillivray's seaside sparrow and the Florida sandhill crane are given
a NatureServe ranking of T2, while the black rail is more widely
distributed and given a NatureServe ranking of G4. The black rail is a
previous category 2 candidate species.
The petition identified four butterflies and requested that they be
added to the List, including the following: Linda's roadside-skipper
(Amblyscirtes linda), Duke's skipper (Euphyes dukesi calhouni), Palatka
skipper (Euphyes pilatka klotsi), and rare skipper (Problema bulenta).
Linda's roadside skipper and the rare skipper are afforded a
NatureServe ranking of G2. Duke's and Palatka's skippers are afforded
NatureServe rankings of T2 and T1, respectively. The rare skipper was
previously considered a category 2 candidate, until that category was
discontinued by the Service in 1996.
The petition identified nine caddisflies and requested that they be
added to the List. Six of these are included in this finding, including
the following: Logan's agarodes caddisfly (Agarodes logani), Sykora's
hydroptila caddisfly (Hydroptila sykorae), Morse's little plain brown
sedge (Lepidostoma morsei), little oecetis longhorn caddisfly (Oecetis
parva), Setose cream and brown mottled microcaddisfly (Oxyethira
setosa), and three-toothed triaenodes caddisfly (Triaenodes tridontus).
Of these caddisflies, two are assigned a NatureServe ranking of G1,
and four are assigned a G2. There is very little known about these
species except that they appear to be very narrow endemics. The little
oecetis longhorn caddisfly and three-toothed triaenodes caddisfly are
previous category 2 candidate species.
The petition identified 83 crayfish and requested that they be
added to the List. Eighty-one of these are included in this finding:
Bayou Bodcau crayfish (Bouchardina robisoni), Dougherty Plain cave
crayfish (Cambarus cryptodytes), Obey crayfish (Cambarus obeyensis),
cypress crayfish (Cambarellus blacki), least crayfish (Cambarellus
diminutus), angular dwarf crawfish (Cambarellus lesliei), Big South
Fork crayfish (Cambarus bouchardi), New River crayfish (Cambarus
chasmodactylus), Chauga crayfish (Cambarus chaugaensis), Coosawattae
crayfish (Cambarus coosawattae), slenderclaw crayfish (Cambarus
cracens), Conasauga blue burrower (Cambarus cymatilis), Grandfather
Mountain crayfish (Cambarus eeseeohensis), Elk River crayfish (Cambarus
elkensis), Chickamauga crayfish (Cambarus extraneus), Etowah crayfish
(Cambarus fasciatus), Little Tennessee crayfish (Cambarus georgiae),
Piedmont blue burrower (Cambarus harti), spiny scale crayfish (Cambarus
jezerinaci), Alabama cave crayfish (Cambarus jonesi), Greenbrier cave
crayfish (Cambarus nerterius), Hiwassee headwater crayfish (Cambarus
parrishi), pristine crayfish (Cambarus pristinus), Chattooga River
crayfish (Cambarus scotti), beautiful crayfish (Cambarus speciosus),
Broad River spiny crayfish (Cambarus spicatus), lean crayfish (Cambarus
strigosus), blackbarred crayfish (Cambarus unestami), Big Sandy
crayfish (Cambarus veteranus), Brawley's Fork crayfish (Cambarus
williami), mimic crayfish (Distocambarus carlsoni), Broad River
burrowing crayfish (Distocambarus devexus), Newberry burrowing crayfish
(Distocambarus youngineri), burrowing bog crayfish (Fallicambarus
burrisi), speckled burrowing crayfish
[[Page 59841]]
(Fallicambarus danielae), Jefferson County crayfish (Fallicambarus
gilpini), Ouachita burrowing crayfish (Fallicambarus harpi), Hatchie
burrowing crayfish (Fallicambarus hortoni), slenderwrist burrowing
crayfish (Fallicambarus petilicarpus), Saline burrowing crayfish
(Fallicambarus strawni), Crested riverlet crayfish (Hobbseus
cristatus), Oktibbeha riverlet crayfish (Hobbseus orconectoides),
Tombigbee riverlet crayfish (Hobbseus petilus), Yalobusha riverlet
crayfish (Hobbseus yalobushensis), Calcasieu crayfish (Orconectes
blacki), Coldwater crayfish (Orconectes eupunctus), Yazoo crayfish
(Orconectes hartfieldi), Tennessee cave crayfish (Orconectes
incomptus), Sucarnoochee River crayfish (Orconectes jonesi), Kisatchie
painted crayfish (Orconectes maletae), Mammoth Spring crayfish
(Orconectes marchandi), Appalachian cave crayfish (Orconectes
packardi), Shelta cave crayfish (Orconectes sheltae), Chowanoke
crayfish (Orconectes virginiensis), Hardin crayfish (Orconectes
wrighti), Orlando cave crayfish (Procambarus acherontis), Coastal
flatwoods crayfish (Procambarus apalachicolae), Silver Glen Springs
crayfish (Procambarus attiguus), Jackson Prairie crayfish (Procambarus
barbiger), Mississippi flatwoods crayfish (Procambarus cometes),
bigcheek cave crayfish (Procambarus delicatus), Panama City crayfish
(Procambarus econfinae), Santa Fe cave crayfish (Procambarus
erythrops), spinytail crayfish (Procambarus fitzpatricki), Orange Lake
cave crayfish (Procambarus franzi), Big Blue Springs cave crayfish
(Procambarus horsti), lagniappe crayfish (Procambarus lagniappe),
coastal lowland cave crayfish (Procambarus leitheuseri), Florida cave
crayfish (Procambarus lucifugus), Alachua light-fleeing cave crayfish
(Procambarus lucifugus alachua), Florida cave crayfish (Procambarus
lucifugus lucifugus), Shutispear crayfish (Procambarus lylei), Miami
cave crayfish (Procambarus milleri), Putnam County cave crayfish
(Procambarus morrisi), Woodville Karst cave crayfish (Procambarus
orcinus), pallid cave crayfish (Procambarus pallidus), Black Creek
crayfish (Procambarus pictus), bearded red crayfish (Procambarus
pogum), regal burrowing crayfish (Procambarus regalis), Irons Fork
burrowing crayfish (Procambarus reimeri), and spider cave crayfish
(Troglocambarus maclanei).
The petition identified the Florida cave crayfish twice in its list
of 404 species, once at the species level, Procambarus lucifugus, and
once at the subspecific level, Procambarus lucifugus lucifugus. We
include both in this finding with the intent that a further status
review will assess the status at both the species and subspecies
levels.
We received an amended petition from CBD providing supplemental
comments in support of listing the Panama City crayfish. The petition
identified threats from habitat loss and degradation, predation,
overharvest from collections for use as fishing bait, drought, its
limited range and isolated distribution, pollution from pesticides and
fertilizers, invasive species of introduced crayfish, and the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The Panama City crayfish
only occurs in Bay County, Florida, where it is considered a species of
special concern by the State of Florida. The Service has worked with
the State and the St. Joe Company to develop a Candidate Conservation
Agreement with Assurances, but the Agreement has not been finalized.
Almost all of the petitioned crayfish are restricted to narrow
ranges encompassing small cave or stream systems, which places them in
the G1 or G2 NatureServe ranking due to their restricted ranges. Two
exceptions to this are the Woodville Karst cave crayfish (Procambarus
orcinus), which receives a G3 ranking, and the regal burrowing crayfish
(Procambarus regalis), which is given a G2G3 ranking. Their narrow
ranges make these crayfish vulnerable to any event that would result in
habitat degradation. A number of the crayfish (26) were previously
considered category 2 candidates until that category was discontinued
by the Service in 1996.
The petition identified 14 dragonflies and requested that they be
added to the List, including the following: Say's spiketail
(Cordulegaster sayi), Cherokee clubtail (Gomphus consanguis), Tennessee
clubtail (Gomphus sandrius), Septima's clubtail (Gomphus septima),
Westfall's clubtail (Gomphus westfalli), purple skimmer (Libellula
jesseana), Mountain River cruiser (Macromia margarita), southern
snaketail (Ophiogomphus australis), Edmund's snaketail (Ophiogomphus
edmundo), Appalachian snaketail (Ophiogomphus incurvatus), Calvert's
emerald (Somatochlora calverti), Texas emerald (Somatochlora
margarita), Ozark emerald (Somatochlora ozarkensis), and yellow-sided
clubtail (Stylurus potulentus).
The Service was previously (February 15, 1994) petitioned to list
the Say's spiketail dragonfly as an endangered species. We published a
90-day finding on October 26, 1994 (59 FR 53776) indicating that
because the species was already a category 2 candidate for listing we
would proceed with a full status review. The 12-month finding was
published on July 17, 1995 (60 FR 36380). The Service found that
listing the species was not warranted but retained the designation of
the Say's spiketail as a category 2 candidate species. An additional
eight of the petitioned dragonflies held previous designations of
category 2 candidate species, including the Cherokee clubtail,
Tennessee clubtail, Septima's clubtail, Westfall's clubtail, Mountain
River cruiser, Edmund's snaketail, Appalachian snaketail, and the Texas
emerald. The NatureServe global ranking of the petitioned dragonflies
ranges from G1, critically imperiled, to G3, vulnerable.
The petition identified 47 fish (not including the Alabama shad
(Alosa alabamae), which has already been the subject of a 90-day
finding by NMFS) to be added to the List. Forty-three of these are
included in this finding, including the following: Northern cavefish
(Amblyopsis spelaea), bluestripe shiner (Cyprinella callitaenia),
Altamaha shiner (Cyprinella xaenura), Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma
boehlkei), Ozark chub (Erimystax harryi), Warrior darter (Etheostoma
bellator), holiday darter (Etheostoma brevirostrum), ashy darter
(Etheostoma cinereum), Barrens darter (Etheostoma forbesi), smallscale
darter (Etheostoma microlepidum), candy darter (Etheostoma osburni),
paleback darter (Etheostoma pallididorsum), egg-mimic darter
(Etheostoma pseudovulatum), striated darter (Etheostoma striatulum),
Shawnee darter (Etheostoma tecumsehi), Tippecanoe darter (Etheostoma
tippecanoe), trispot darter (Etheostoma trisella), Tuscumbia darter
(Etheostoma tuscumbia), Barrens topminnow (Fundulus julisia), robust
redhorse (Moxostoma robustum), popeye shiner (Notropis ariommus), Ozark
shiner (Notropis ozarcanus), peppered shiner (Notropis perpallidus),
rocky shiner (Notropis suttkusi), saddled madtom (Noturus fasciatus),
Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), orangefin madtom (Noturus
gilberti), piebald madtom (Noturus gladiator), Ouachita madtom (Noturus
lachneri), frecklebelly madtom (Noturus munitus), Caddo madtom (Noturus
taylori), Chesapeake logperch (Percina bimaculata), coal darter
(Percina brevicauda), Halloween darter (Percina crypta), bluestripe
darter (Percina cymatotaenia), bridled darter (Percina
[[Page 59842]]
kusha), longhead darter (Percina macrocephala), longnose darter
(Percina nasuta), bankhead darter (Percina sipsi), sickle darter
(Percina williamsi), broadstripe shiner (Pteronotropis euryzonus),
bluehead shiner (Pteronotropis hubbsi), and blackfin sucker (Thoburnia
atripinnis). The NatureServe global ranking of these fish ranges from
G1 to G4.
Since receipt of the CBD petition, the laurel dace was proposed for
listing as endangered (75 FR 36035; June 24, 2010). The sicklefin
redhorse has already been found to be warranted for listing and is a
current Federal candidate species.
On December 30, 1977, the Barrens topminnow was proposed for
listing as endangered with critical habitat (42 FR 65209). On March 6,
1979, the critical habitat portion of the proposal was withdrawn due to
the procedural and substantive changes made to the Act in 1978 (44 FR
12382). On July 27, 1979, the Service published a reproposal of
critical habitat for the Barrens topminnow (44 FR 44418). A final
listing was never published, and the species was subsequently
classified as a category 2 candidate for Federal listing until that
category was discontinued in 1996.
On October 6, 1983, the Service was petitioned to list the
orangefin madtom and a substantial finding was published on January 16,
1984 (49 FR 1919). On completion of the status review on October 12,
1984, a 12-month finding was made that listing the orangefin madtom was
warranted but precluded by other efforts to revise the Lists. This
finding was announced in a July 18, 1985, Federal Register notice (50
FR 29238). The species remained a candidate species until its removal
from the candidate list in 1996.
In addition to the above species, 24 of the petitioned fish were at
one time candidates for listing under the Act. The peppered shiner,
paleback darter, and Ouachita madtom were category 1 candidates (47 FR
58454). However, they were subsequently removed from the candidate
list. Twenty-one of the petitioned fish were category 2 candidates for
listing, including the following: Northern cavefish, bluestripe shiner,
Carolina pygmy sunfish, Warrior darter, holiday darter, ashy darter,
Barrens darter, candy darter, egg-mimic darter, striated darter,
trispot darter, Tuscumbia darter, robust redhorse, Ozark shiner,
Carolina madtom, frecklebelly madtom, Caddo madtom, bluestripe darter,
longhead darter, longnose darter, and Halloween darter.
In 1995, the Service entered into a cooperative voluntary
partnership, the Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee, to conserve
the robust redhorse through a Memorandum of Understanding between State
and Federal resource agencies, private industry, and the conservation
community. In 2002, the Service entered into a Robust Redhorse
Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances with the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources and the Georgia Power Company to
restore the species to the Ocmulgee River.
The petition identified one springfly, the Blueridge springfly
(Remenus kirchneri), and one moth, the Louisiana eyed silkmoth
(Automeris louisiana), and requested that they be added to the List.
These species hold NatureServe global rankings of G2.
The petition identified four mammals and requested that they be
added to the List, including the following: Sherman's short-tailed
shrew (Blarina carolinensis shermani), Pine Island oryzomys or marsh
rice rat (Oryzomys palustris, pop. 1), Sanibel Island oryzomys or marsh
rice rat (Oryzomys palustris, pop. 2), and insular cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus insulicola). All four of these mammals are afforded a ranking
of G1 or T1 by NatureServe. The insular cotton rat was previously a
category 2 candidate species but was removed from the candidate list in
1996 when the category was discontinued.
The petition identified two isopods and requested that they be
added to the List: The Caecidotea cannula (no common name) and Rye Cove
isopod (Lirceus culveri). These isopods are given NatureServe rankings
of G2 (Caecidotea cannula) and G1 (Rye Cove isopod). Both species were
former category 2 candidates for listing, until that category was
discontinued in 1996.
The petition identified 48 mussels and requested that they be added
to the List. Thirteen species of mussels identified in the petition are
not evaluated in this finding; twelve have previously been found by the
Service to warrant listing, and one, the Ouachita creekshell (Villosa
arkansasensis) has not yet been evaluated. Thirty-five of the
petitioned species are included in this finding, including the
following: Altamaha arcmussel (Alasmidonta arcula), southern elktoe
(Alasmidonta triangulata), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa),
Apalachicola floater (Anodonta heardi), rayed creekshell (Anodontoides
radiatus), western fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti), southern lance
(Elliptio ahenea), Alabama spike (Elliptio arca), delicate spike
(Elliptio arctata), brother spike (Elliptio fraterna), yellow lance
(Elliptio lanceolata), St. Johns elephant ear (Elliptio monroensis),
inflated spike (Elliptio purpurella), Tennessee pigtoe (Pleuronaia
barnesiana), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), longsolid (Fusconaia
subrotunda), Waccamaw fatmucket (Lampsilis fullerkati), Tennessee
heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia), green floater (Lasmigona
subviridis), Cumberland moccasinshell (Medionidus conradicus), Suwannee
moccasinshell (Medionidus walkeri), round hickorynut (Obovaria
subrotunda), Alabama hickorynut (Obovaria unicolor), Canoe Creek pigtoe
(Pleurobema athearni), Tennessee clubshell (Pleurobema oviforme),
Warrior pigtoe (Pleurobema rubellum), pyramid pigtoe (Pleurobema
rubrum), inflated floater (Pyganodon gibbosa), Tallapoosa orb (Quadrula
asperata archeri), salamander mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua), purple
lilliput (Toxolasma lividus), Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus),
Alabama rainbow (Villosa nebulosa), Kentucky creekshell (Villosa
ortmanni), and Coosa creekshell (Villosa umbrans).
These mussels have NatureServe rankings ranging from G1, critically
imperiled, to G3, vulnerable, with one mussel, the round hickorynut,
having a ranking of G4, apparently stable. The Atlantic pigtoe,
Waccamaw fatmucket, Tennessee heelsplitter, green floater, Suwannee
moccasinshell, Tennessee clubshell, warrior pigtoe, salamander mussel,
purple lilliput, Savannah lilliput, and Kentucky creekshell, are
previous category 2 candidates for listing, but were removed when the
category was discontinued in 1996.
The snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) and rayed bean (Villosa
fabalis) were proposed for listing as endangered on November 2, 2010
(75 FR 67552). The spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) and sheepnose
(Plethobasus cyphyus) were proposed as endangered on January 19, 2011
(76 FR 3392). The other eight are current candidates for Federal
listing and subjects of a draft proposed rule to list, including the
narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia), round ebonyshell (Fusconaia
rotulata), southern sandshell (Hamiota australis), fuzzy pigtoe
(Pleurobema strodeanum), southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi),
rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia
burkei), and Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis).
The petition identified six non-vascular plants and requested that
they be added to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants,
including the following: Fissidens appalachensis (Appalachian fissidens
moss), Fissidens hallii (Hall's pocket moss), Megaceros aenigmaticus
(hornwort), Phaeophyscia
[[Page 59843]]
leana (Lea's bog lichen), Plagiochila caduciloba (Gorge leafy
liverwort), and Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii (Sharp's leafy
liverwort). The NatureServe Global ranking for these plants ranges from
G2, imperiled (Fissidens appalachensis, Fissidens hallii, Phaeophyscia
leana, and Megaceros aenigmaticus), to G3, vulnerable (Plagiochila
caduciloba), to T3, vulnerable (Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii).
Plagiochila caduciloba and Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii held prior
Federal category 2 candidate status, but were removed from that list
when we discontinued use of the category 2 and 3C lists in 1996.
The petition identified 13 reptiles and requested that they be
added to the List. Twelve of these are subjects of this finding,
including the following: Kirtland's snake (Clonophis kirtlandii),
western chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia miaria), Florida keys
mole skink (Eumeces egregius egregius), Barbour's map turtle (Graptemys
barbouri), Escambia map turtle (Graptemys ernsti), Pascagoula map
turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi), black-knobbed map turtle (Graptemys
nigrinoda), Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra), Lower Florida Keys
striped mud turtle (Kinosternon baurii, pop. 1), Florida Panhandle
Florida red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys nelsoni, pop. 1), northern red-
bellied cooter (Pseudemys rubriventris), and Lower Florida Keys eastern
ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus, pop. 1).
The Kirtland's snake, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle,
and Pascagoula map turtle have a NatureServe conservation status of G2,
with State rankings varying from possibly extirpated, to S1, to S2. The
black-knobbed map turtle has a NatureServe ranking of G3. The Alabama
map turtle has a NatureServe ranking of G4, but State rankings vary
from S1 to S3. The Florida Keys mole skink and Lower Florida Keys
eastern ribbonsnake are given a NatureServe global ranking of T1. The
western chicken turtle is considered secure by NatureServe with a
global ranking of T5. The Lower Florida Keys striped mud turtle and the
Florida Panhandle population of the Florida red-bellied turtle are
given a T2 NatureServe ranking. We proposed to list the striped mud
turtle as endangered on May 19, 1978 (43 FR 21702) but never finalized
the listing. The species was placed on the category 2 candidate list on
December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454). The northern red-bellied cooter is
given a NatureServe ranking of G4 or apparently stable with State
rankings ranging from S2 (imperiled) to S5 (stable). In addition to the
striped mud turtle, Kirtland's snake, Florida Keys mole skink, and
Barbour's map turtle were each prior Federal category 2 candidate
species. The black-knobbed map turtle was a prior category 3C candidate
species (taxa that were proven to be more widespread than was
previously believed and/or those that were not subject to any
identifiable threat).
The petition identified 44 snails and requested that they be added
to the List, of which 43 are subjects of this finding, including the
following: Manitou cavesnail (Antrorbis breweri), Blue Spring hydrobe
snail (Aphaostracon asthenes), freemouth hydrobe snail (Aphaostracon
chalarogyrus), Wekiwa hydrobe snail (Aphaostracon monas), dense hydrobe
snail (Aphaostracon pycnus), Clifton Spring hydrobe snail (Aphaostracon
theiocrenetum), acute elimia (Elimia acuta), mud elimia (Elimia
alabamensis), ample elimia (Elimia ampla), Lilyshoals elimia (Elimia
annettae), spider elimia (Elimia arachnoidea), princess elimia (Elimia
bellacrenata), walnut elimia (Elimia bellula), prune elimia (Elimia
chiltonensis), cockle elimia (Elimia cochliaris), cylinder elimia
(Elimia cylindracea), nodulose Coosa River snail (Elimia lachryma),
round-rib elimia (Elimia nassula), caper elimia (Elimia olivula),
engraved elimia (Elimia perstriata), compact elimia (Elimia
showalteri), elegant elimia (Elimia teres), cobble elimia (Elimia
vanuxemiana), Ichetucknee siltsnail (Floridobia mica), Enterprise
siltsnail (Floridobia monroensis), pygmy siltsnail (Floridobia parva),
Ponderosa siltsnail (Floridobia ponderosa), Wekiwa siltsnail
(Floridobia wekiwae), spiny riversnail (Io fluvialis), Arkansas mudalia
(Leptoxis arkansasensis), spotted rocksnail (Leptoxis picta), smooth
mudalia (Leptoxis virgata), knobby rocksnail (Lithasia curta), helmet
rocksnail (Lithasia duttoniana), Ocmulgee marstonia (Marstonia
agarhecta), beaverpond marstonia (Marstonia castor), Ozark pyrg
(Marstonia ozarkensis), magnificant rams-horn (Planorbella magnifica),
corpulent hornsnail (Pleurocera corpulenta), shortspire hornsnail
(Pleurocera curta), skirted hornsnail (Pleurocera pyrenella), domed
ancylid (Rhodacme elatior), and reverse pebblesnail (Somatogyrus
alcoviensis).
These 43 snails each maintain a NatureServe ranking of either G1,
critically imperiled, or G2, imperiled. Several are previous Federal
category 2 candidates, including the magnificent rams-horn, beaverpond
marstonia, Ocmulgee marstonia, and the skirted hornsnail, until that
category was discontinued in 1996.
The petition identified eight stoneflies and requested that they be
added to the List, including the following: Virginia stone (Acroneuria
kosztarabi), Sevier snowfly (Allocapnia brooksi), Smokies snowfly
(Allocapnia fumosa), Karst snowfly (Allocapnia cunninghami), Tennessee
forestfly (Amphinemura mockfordi), Louisiana needlefly (Leuctra
szczytkoi), Smokies needlefly (Megaleuctra williamsae), and lobed
roachfly (Tallaperla lobata). The Virginia stone and Karst snowfly are
assigned a NatureServe global ranking of G1, critically imperiled. The
Sevier snowfly, Smokies snowfly, Tennessee forestfly, Louisiana
needlefly, Smokies needlefly, and lobed roachfly are assigned
NatureServe global rankings of G2.
Lastly, the petition identified 76 vascular plants and requested
that they be added to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, of
which 75 are included in this finding, including the following:
Aeschynomene pratensis (meadow joint-vetch), Alnus maritima (seaside
alder), Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana (Georgia leadplant or Georgia
indigo bush), Arnoglossum diversifolium (variable-leaved Indian-
plantain), Balduina atropurpurea (purple balduina or purple disk
honeycombhead), Baptisia megacarpa (Apalachicola wild indigo), Bartonia
texana (Texas screwstem), Boltonia montana (Doll's daisy), Calamovilfa
arcuata (rivergrass), Carex brysonii (Bryson's sedge), Carex
impressinervia (impressed-nerved sedge), Coreopsis integrifolia
(ciliate-leaf tickseed), Croton elliottii (Elliott's croton), Elytraria
caroliniensis var. angustifolia (narrowleaf Carolina scalystem),
Encyclia cochleata var. triandra (Clam-shell orchid), Epidendrum
strobiliferum (Big Cypress epidendrum), Eriocaulon koernickianum
(small-headed pipewort), Eriocaulon nigrobracteatum (black-bracked
pipewort), Eupatorium paludicola (a thoroughwort), Eurybia
saxicastellii (Rockcastle wood-aster), Fimbristylis perpusilla
(Harper's fimbristylis), Forestiera godfreyi (Godfry's privet),
Hartwrightia floridan (Hartwrightia), Helianthus occidentalis ssp.
plantagineus (Shinner's sunflower), Hexastylis speciosa (Harper's
heartleaf), Hymenocallis henryae (Henry's spider-lily), Hypericum
edisonianum (Edison's ascyrum), Hypericum lissophloeus (smooth-barked
St. John's-wort), Illicium parviflorum (yellow anisetree), Isoetes
hyemalis (winter or evergreen quillwort), Isoetes microvela (thin-wall
quillwort), Lilium iridollae (panhandle lily), Lindera subcoriacea (bog
spicebush), Linum westii (West's flax),
[[Page 59844]]
Lobelia boykinii (Boykin's lobelia), Ludwigia brevipes (Long Beach
seedbox), Ludwigia spathulata (spathulate seedbox), Ludwigia ravenii
(Raven's seedbox), Lythrum curtissii (Curtis's loosestrife), Lythrum
flagellare (lowland loosestrife), Macbridea caroliniana (Carolina
birds-in-a-nest), Marshallia grandiflora (Large-flowered Barbara's-
buttons), Minuartia godfreyi (Godfrey's stitchwort), Najas filifolia
(narrowleaf naiad), Nufar lutea ssp. sagittifolia (Cape Fear
spatterdock or yellow pond lily), Nufar lutea ssp. ulvacea (West
Florida cow-lily), Nyssa ursina (Bear tupelo or dwarf blackgum),
Oncidium undulatum (Cape Sable orchid), Physostegia correllii
(Correll's false dragonhead), Potamogeton floridanus (Florida
pondweed), Potamogeton tennesseensis (Tennessee pondweed), Ptilimnium
ahlesii (Carolina bishopweed), Rhexia parviflora (small-flower meadow-
beauty), Rhexia salicifolia (panhandle meadow-beauty), Rhynchospora
crinipes (hairy-peduncled beakbush), Rhynchospora thornei (Thorne's
beakbush), Rudbeckia auriculata (eared coneflower), Rudbeckia
heliopsidis (sun-facing coneflower), Salix floridana (Florida willow),
Sarracenia purpurea var. montana (mountain purple pitcherplant),
Sarracenia rubra ssp. gulfensis (Gulf sweet pitcherplant), Sarracenia
rubra ssp. wherryi (Wherry's sweet pitcherplant), Schoenoplectus hallii
(Hall's bulrush), Scuttelaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap), Sideroxylon
thornei (swamp buckhorn or Georgia bully), Solidago arenicola (southern
racemose goldenrod), Sporobolus teretifolius (wire-leaved dropseed),
Stellaria fontinalis (water stitchwort), Symphyotrichum puniceum var.
scabricaule (rough-stemmed aster), Thalictrum debile (southern
meadowrue), Trillium texanum (Texas trillium), Tsuga caroliniana
(Carolina hemlock), Vicia ocalensis (Ocala vetch), Waldsteinia lobata
(lobed barren-strawberry), and Xyris longisepala (Kral's yellow-eyed
grass). One of the species petitioned, Solidago plumosa (Yadkin River
goldenrod), is already a current Federal candidate species and is,
therefore, not considered in this finding.
On December 11, 2010, the Service received a second petition from
Wild South to list Tsuga caroliniana (Carolina hemlock) as endangered
under the Act and to designate critical habitat. On December 20, 2010,
we provided a response to the petitioners acknowledging receipt of the
petition and identifying it as a supplementary petition as Tsuga
caroliniana was also included in the CBD petition to list 404
southeastern U.S. species. Wild South provided additional information
on the species' life history, status and threats.
Of the 75 vascular plants identified above, 46 held previous
Federal candidate status, prior to 1996 and the discontinuance of the
category 2 and 3C classifications. These include the following: Alnus
maritima (seaside alder), Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana (Georgia
leadplant or Georgia indigo bush), Balduina atropurpurea (purple
balduina or purple disk honeycombhead), Baptisia megacarpa
(Apalachicola wild indigo), Bartonia texana (Texas screwstem),
Calamovilfa arcuata (rivergrass), Carex impressinervia (impressed-
nerved sedge), Croton elliottii (Elliott's croton), Elytraria
caroliniensis var. angustifolia (narrowleaf Carolina scalystem),
Eriocaulon koernickianum (small-headed pipewort), Fimbristylis
perpusilla (Harper's fimbristylis), Hartwrightia floridan
(Hartwrightia), Hexastylis speciosa (Harper's heartleaf), Hymenocallis
henryae (Henry's spider-lily), Hypericum edisonianum (Edison's
ascyrum), Hypericum lissophloeus (smooth-barked St. John's-wort),
Illicium parviflorum (yellow anisetree), Lilium iridollae (panhandle
lily), Lindera subcoriacea (bog spicebush), Linum westii (West's flax),
Lobelia boykinii (Boykin's lobelia), Lythrum curtissii (Curtis's
loosestrife), Lythrum flagellare (lowland loosestrife), Macbridea
caroliniana (Carolina birds-in-a-nest), Marshallia grandiflora (Large-
flowered Barbara's-buttons), Minuartia godfreyi (Godfrey's stitchwort),
Najas filifolia (narrowleaf naiad), Nufar lutea ssp. ulvacea (West
Florida cow-lily), Nyssa ursina (Bear tupelo or dwarf blackgum),
Physostegia correllii (Correll's false dragonhead), Potamogetan
floridanus (Florida pondweed), Rhexia parviflora (small-flower meadow-
beauty), Rhexia salicifolia (panhandle meadow-beauty), Rhynchospora
crinipes (hairy-peduncled beakbush), Rhynchospora thornei (Thorne's
beakbush), Rudbeckia auriculata (eared coneflower), Rudbeckia
heliopsidis (sun-facing coneflower), Salix floridana (Florida willow),
Sarracenia rubra ssp. wherryi (Wherry's sweet pitcherplant),
Scuttelaria ocmulgee (Ocmulgee skullcap), Sporobolus teretifolius
(wire-leaved dropseed), Stellaria fontinalis (water stitchwort),
Thalictrum debile (southern meadowrue), Trillium texanum (Texas
trillium), Vicia ocalensis (Ocala vetch), Waldsteinia lobata (lobed
barren-strawberry), and Xyris longisepala (Kral's yellow-eyed grass).
The NatureServe global ranking of these 75 species ranges from
subspecies T1, to T2, to T3 status and species G1, to G2, to G3, and
G4.
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 Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (Lists). 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.
Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above factors,
singly or in combination.
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 endangered or threatened 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 impacted could suffice. The mere identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to
compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information shall
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 endangered or threatened under the Act.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the 374 species, as presented in the petition and
other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby
indicating that
[[Page 59845]]
listing any of the species in the petitioned action may be warranted.
Our evaluation of this information is presented below. Our review of
the species varied significantly depending on the amount of information
presented in the petition and the amount of information available in
our files. Because so little information was available in our files for
many of these rare, locally endemic species, the information below
summarizes only the information in the petition, unless noted
otherwise.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
The petition states that all species, except for one (Oncidium
undulatum, Cape Sable orchid) identified in the petition are threatened
by the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of their habitat or range. According to the petition, aquatic and
riparian habitats in the Southeast have been extensively degraded by
direct alterations of waterways such as impoundment, diversion,
dredging and channelization, and draining of wetlands, and by land-use
activities such as development, agriculture, logging, and mining (Benz
and Collins 1997; Shute et al. 1997). More than one-third of the
petitioned species have experienced drastic range reductions, and up to
a 90 percent range loss for many of the petitioned mussels and snails
(Pyne and Durham 1993; Neves et al. 1997; NatureServe 2008). According
to the petition, because many of the aquatic species in the Southeast
are very narrow endemics or have experienced a dramatic range
reduction, remaining populations are now susceptible to extinction from
even relatively minor habitat losses (Herrig and Shute 2002).
The petition asserts that habitat loss and degradation are driving
the decline of reptiles, mollusks, and other aquatic taxa. Buhlman and
Gibbons (1997) found that 36 percent of analyzed imperiled aquatic
reptiles are threatened because of the ``continuing, cumulative abuse
sustained by river systems,'' and that at least 22 southeastern reptile
taxa have declined due to degradation of rivers and streams. Habitat
degradation and fragmentation is also asserted to be the primary cause
of imperilment for southeastern mollusks (Neves et al. 1997; Lysne et
al. 2008); mammals (Harvey and Clark 1997); fish (Warren et al. 1997);
and plants (Stein et al. 2000).
Physical Alteration of Aquatic Habitats
Impoundment
According to the petition, nearly half of the petitioned species
are threatened by impoundment, including 83 percent of the fishes and
67 percent of the mollusks. Dams modify habitat and aquatic communities
both upstream and downstream of the impoundment (Winston et al. 1991;
Mulholland and Lenat 1992; Soballe et al. 1992). Upstream of dams,
habitat is flooded and in-channel conditions change from flowing to
still water, with increased depth, decreased levels of dissolved
oxygen, and increased sedimentation. Sedimentation alters substrate
conditions by filling in interstitial spaces between rocks, which
provide habitat for many species (Neves et al. 1997). Downstream of
dams, flow regime fluctuates (with resulting fluctuations in water
temperature and dissolved oxygen levels), the substrate is scoured, and
downstream tributaries are eroded (Schuster 1997; Buckner et al. 2002).
Negative ``tailwater'' effects on habitat extend many kilometers
downstream (Neves et al. 1997). Dams fragment habitat of aquatic
species by blocking corridors for migration and dispersal, resulting in
population isolation and heightened susceptibility to extinction (Neves
et al. 1997). Dams also preclude aquatic organisms from escaping
polluted waters and accidental spills (Buckner et al. 2002).
As of the early 1990s, there were 144 major reservoirs in the
Southeast, including 26 in Tennessee, 19 each in Alabama and North
Carolina, and 17 in Kentucky (Soballe et al. 1992). There are 36 dams
on the mainstem and major tributaries of the Tennessee River (Neves et
al. 1997), resulting in the impoundment of more than 20 percent of the
Tennessee River and its major tributaries (Shute et al. 1997). The
Tennessee and Cumberland River drainages have approximately 70 major
dams and reservoirs (Buckner et al. 2002). Waterways in Alabama have
also been extensively impounded, with 16 major lock and dam structures
on six rivers, 21 hydroelectric power dams, and over 20 public water
supply impoundments (Buckner et al. 2002). The Coosa and Tallapoosa
Rivers in Georgia and Alabama have been ranked among the most imperiled
rivers in the nation due to damming (Buckner et al. 2002).
The petition asserts that, in addition to rivers, damming of
streams and springs is also extensive throughout the Southeast (Etnier
1997; Morse et al. 1997; Shute et al. 1997). Noss et al. (1995) reports
that practically every stream in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain has
been channelized, levied, or hydrologically altered. Small streams on
private lands are regularly dammed to create ponds for cattle, for
irrigation, for recreation, and for fishing, with significant
ecological effects due to the sheer abundance of these structures
(Morse et al. 1997).
In Florida and other Southeast States, impoundment of large coastal
tributaries has severely curtailed fish spawning runs (Gilbert 1992).
Impoundment blocks migratory routes of fish and covers spawning habitat
with silt (Etnier 1997). According to the petitioners, dams and the
resultant substrate changes have imperiled disproportionately high
numbers of benthic fishes (Warren et al. 1997).
Changes in the fish community jeopardize the survival of mussels
because mussels are dependent on host fish to successfully reproduce,
with some species of mussels being dependent on specific species of
fish (Bogan 1993, 1996). If the fish species upon which a mussel is
dependent to host its larvae goes extinct, then the mussel becomes
``functionally extinct,'' even when there are surviving long-lived
individuals (Bogan 1993). Impoundments can also separate mussel
populations from host fish populations, resulting in the eventual
extinction of the mussel species (Bogan 1993, 1996). The loss of
mussels can in turn negatively affect fish, because some species of
fish use empty mussel shells as nest sites (Bennett et al. 2008).
The petition claims that impoundments are also one of the primary
reasons for the decline in crustaceans in the Southeast (Schuster
1997), in aquatic insects (Herrig and Shute 2002), and in forest-
associated bird species, particularly for species with narrow niches
and low tolerance to disturbance (Dickson 2007).
Dredging and Channelization
According to the petition, dredging and channelization are
extensively employed throughout the Southeast for flood control,
navigation, sand and gravel mining, and conversion of wetlands into
croplands (Neves et al. 1997; Herrig and Shute 2002). Many rivers are
continually dredged to maintain shipping channels (Abell et al. 2002).
Dredging and channelization modify and destroy habitat for aquatic
species by destabilizing the substrate, increasing erosion and
siltation, removing woody debris, decreasing habitat heterogeneity, and
stirring up contaminants that settle onto the substrate (Hart and
Fuller 1974; Williams et al. 1993; Buckner et al.
[[Page 59846]]
2002; Bennett et al. 2008). Channelization can also lead to
headcutting, sedimentation, and actual removal of mussels from their
beds during dredging operations (Hart and Fuller 1974; Williams et al.
1993).
The petition also claims that dredging and channelization also
threaten imperiled fish, reptiles, crustaceans, and other species.
Dredging removes woody debris, which provides cover and nest locations
for fish such as the frecklebelly madtom (Bennett et al. 2008). Flood
control projects and channel maintenance operations in Mississippi
threaten aquatic species in the Yazoo Basin (Jackson et al. 1993),
including the petitioned Yazoo crayfish. Dredging and channelization
are also known to be the primary reason for imperilment of southeastern
crustaceans (Schuster 1997), and to contribute to the decline of
southeastern turtles (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997). Many of the imperiled
turtle species, including the highly imperiled map turtles, are
threatened by the removal of woody debris, on which they depend for
basking.
Water Development and Diversion and Decreased Water Availability
According to the petition, in the Southeast, demands for freshwater
for electricity production, irrigation, agriculture, and industrial and
residential development are increasing (Herrig and Shute 2002; Hutson
et al. 2005; Lysne et al. 2008). Limited water supply is already a
source of conflict in Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia in particular,
where rapidly growing metropolitan areas such as Atlanta, Birmingham,
and Nashville have drastically increased the demand for water for
residential and industrial uses (Buckner et al. 2002). The construction
of numerous large Confined Animal Feeding Operations throughout the
Southeast has led to an increased demand for inter-basin water
transfers (Buckner et al. 2002). Increasing drought due to global
climate change is expected to exacerbate the threat of limited water
availability to aquatic and riparian species in southeastern States
(Karl et al. 2009). Water demands to support gas-fired steam plants for
electricity generation have increased in the Southeast. These plants
require millions of gallons of water per day, and return only roughly
one-fifth of that water back to the waterways, and even this water
tends to be thermally polluted and may be inadequate to meet the
dissolved oxygen needs of aquatic species (Buckner et al. 2002).
The petition also asserts that surface diversion of streams
threatens southeastern aquatic species (Etnier 1997; Abell et al. 2000;
Buckner et al. 2002; Herrig and Shute 2002), and that an increasing
threat to southeastern species is the growing practice of damming small
headwater streams to supply water for municipalities (Buckner et al.
2002). Water withdrawals reduce base flows, decreasing habitat
availability for aquatic species, and the reduced water volume also
increases the concentration of pollutants, posing another threat to
species (Abell et al. 2000; Herrig and Shute 2002).
According to the petition, in addition to rivers and streams, many
southeastern springs have been drastically altered to supply water for
human uses (Etnier 1997). Spring development and diversion can alter
flow regime and water quality parameters, lead to substrate disturbance
and erosion, and alter the substance and composition of vegetative
cover with resultant effects on freshwater fauna (Shepard 1993; Frest
and Johannes 1995; Frest 2002). An additional threat to southeastern
species is groundwater overdraft (pumpage of groundwater in excess of
safe yields), which threatens spring flow and species that are
dependent on consistent spring flow conditions (Strayer 2006). The
petitioners also assert that the dewatering of groundwater systems in
the Southeast threatens rare species of isopods, amphipods, fish,
crayfish, and amphibians that are dependent on stable spring and cave
environments (Herrig and Shute 2002).
Loss of Wetlands
According to the petition, through the mid-1980s, wetlands were
lost in the Southeast as a rate of over 385,000 acres per year (Hefner
and Brown 1984). In Florida alone, more than 9 million acres of
wetlands had been lost by that time (Cerulean 1991). In Arkansas 6
million acres of Mississippi Delta wetlands had been converted to
agricultural use by the mid-1980s (Smith et al. 1984). In the Lower
Mississippi Valley Region, more than one-third of existing wetlands
were destroyed from 1950 to 1970 (Mitsch and Gosselink 1986), with over
185,000 acres of wetlands continuing to be lost annually through the
mid-1980s in this region (Tiner 1984). In Tennessee, up to 90 percent
of upland wetlands on the Highland Rim have been destroyed, as have
more than 90 percent of Appalachian bogs in the Blue Ridge Province
(Pyne and Durham 1993). The destruction of pocosins (evergreen shrub
bogs) has been extensive throughout the Southeast, with greater than 90
percent loss in Virginia, nearly 70 percent loss in North Carolina, and
nearly 70 percent loss on the Southeastern Coastal Plain (Noss et al.
1995).
The petition asserts that loss, degradation, and fragmentation of
wetland habitat have negatively affected numerous southeastern
freshwater species, and natural wetland habitats continue to be lost,
placing more species at risk (Dodd 1990; Benz and Collins 1997;
Semlitsch and Bodie 1998; Herrig and Shute 2002). Vegetated permanent
wetlands are among the most jeopardized habitats in the Southeast, with
the result that fish families that are dependent on these habitats are
disproportionately imperiled, such as the pygmy sunfishes (Etnier and
Starnes 1991; Cubbage and Flather 1993; Dickson and Warren 1994; Warren
et al. 1994). According to petitioners, wetland destruction has also
destroyed habitat for many bird species (Dickson 1997); aquatic reptile
species that depend on standing water habitats (Herrig and Shute
2002),; and amphibians (LaClaire 1997), such as the Gulf Hammock dwarf
siren (Amphibia Web 2009). Because many reptile and amphibian
populations exist as metapopulations that rely on habitat connectivity
to maintain genetic structure and provide recolonization opportunities
in the event of localized extirpations, habitat fragmentation and
isolation threaten their regional persistence by cutting off
opportunities for migration and dispersal and by magnifying the
likelihood of inbreeding depression and reproductive failure due to
random environmental perturbation (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997; Semlitsch
and Bodie 1998).
Land Use Activities That Decrease Watershed Integrity
The petition asserts that southeastern aquatic species are
threatened not only by direct physical alteration of waterways, but
also by activities in the watershed that directly or indirectly degrade
aquatic habitats such as residential, commercial, and industrial
development; agriculture; logging; mining; alteration of natural fire
regime; and recreation. Land use activities can alter water chemistry,
flow, temperature, and nutrient and sediment transport, and can
interfere with normal watershed functioning (Folkerts 1997).
Residential and Industrial Development and Human Population Growth
According to the petition, development threatens two-thirds of the
petitioned species. The primary threat to the petitioned dragonfly, the
purple skimmer, is lakeshore development. The Waccamaw fatmucket, a
petitioned
[[Page 59847]]
mussel, is threatened primarily by increasing development in its
watershed. Also, according to the petition, the Carolina pygmy sunfish,
Chauga crayfish, and many other petitioned species are also threatened
primarily by development.
The human population nearly doubled in the Southeast between 1970
and 2000 (Folkerts 1997). Southeastern states continued to experience
significant human population growth from 2000 to 2007, with the
population of Georgia increasing by 17 percent, Florida by 14 percent,
North Carolina by 13 percent, South Carolina by 10 percent, Virginia by
9 percent, and Tennessee by 8 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).
Metropolitan areas in the Southeast are among the fastest growing in
the nation (Dodd 1997).
Population growth threatens biodiversity through an increased
demand for food, water, and other resources. The strong geographic
focus of development around freshwaters concentrates human ecological
impacts on freshwater ecosystems more than on any other part of the
landscape (Strayer 2006). Throughout the Southeast, increased
development is creating water supply problems, stressing available
water resources, and polluting aquatic habitats (Seager et al. 2009).
Global climate change is expected to lead to fluctuating water supplies
in the Southeast, and in conjunction with increasing human demand for
freshwater, to place many aquatic at heightened risk of extinction
(Karl et al. 2009).
The petition asserts that urbanization and residential, commercial,
and industrial development threaten aquatic species in both direct and
indirect ways. Habitat is directly lost and fragmented through land
conversion and through water withdrawal and diversion (Benz and Collins
1997). Predation increases as populations of pets and synanthropic
species ecologically associated with humans increase (Marzluff et al.
2001). Point-source pollution from industry and runoff from parking
lots, roofs, roads, and lawns degrade water quality and have lethal and
sub-lethal effects on aquatic species. Urban runoff is associated with
declines in macroinvertebrate diversity and with decreased mussel
growth rates, and urban land use classes are associated with impairment
of fish and macroinvertebrate communities (Soucek et al. 2003; Carlisle
et al. 2008). Amphibians and reptiles are particularly threatened by
development. Siltation and leachate from road runoff can be lethal to
larval amphibians and other aquatic organisms (Dodd 1997). The
construction of roads increases mortality and leads to population
isolation and the disruption of the metacommunity structure on which
the long-term population persistence of many herptile species depends
(Buhlman and Gibbons 1997). Noise and light from roads and developments
can interfere with behavior patterns and disrupt breeding and feeding
activities, particularly for amphibians (Dodd 1997). Amphibian species'
richness is lower in urbanized areas, as many species cannot persist in
urbanized sites (Delis 1993; Herrig and Shute 2002).
According to the petition, habitat loss and degradation due to
development is generally permanent and poses an increasing threat to
southeastern aquatic species. Folkerts (1997) reports that particularly
in the Southeast, development threatens aquatic species more than in
other areas due to lax enforcement of environmental laws in the region.
Recreation
According to the petition, the increased human population is
increasing the demand for recreational developments and activities.
Housing developments, strip malls, and resorts are being constructed in
very rural areas, and small towns are now burgeoning in previously
undeveloped areas in the Southeast including, the Knoxville-Chattanooga
suburban corridor, on the Cumberland Plateau, in the Cahaba River
headwaters outside Birmingham, and in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta (Buckner
et al. 2002). Many rapidly developing small communities are
constructing dams on headwater streams, often in areas that were
recently remote and inaccessible, with resultant impacts on aquatic
species (Buckner et al. 2002). The development of housing and
recreational facilities on lakeshores and in riparian areas results in
the degradation of water quality and aquatic habitat (Tennessen 1997).
For example, Morse et al. (1997) report the loss of rare stonefly
species in a stream in North Carolina following the development of
summer homes.
The petition asserts that recreational developments and activities
threaten aquatic species by fostering air and water pollution, litter,
and potentially high densities of recreationists (Houston 1971; White
and Bratton 1980). Recreation can cause trampling of organisms and
vegetation (Little 1975). Local habitat changes caused by trampling
include simplification of vegetation and soil compaction, which can
result in overall loss of habitat diversity (Speht 1973; Liddle 1975).
Off-road vehicle use can lead to severe degradation of aquatic and
riparian habitats through trampling of organisms, destruction of
vegetation, erosion, and degraded water quality (Wuerthner 2007).
According to the petitioners, off-road vehicle use threatens imperiled
mussels (Hanlon and Levine 2004) and reptiles (Herrig and Shute 2002).
Southeastern aquatic species are also alleged by the petitioners to be
threatened by other forms of motorized recreation, such as motorized
boats and jet skis, which cause oil and gas contamination and bank
erosion (Buckner et al. 2002). Garber and Burger (1995) also document
the extirpation of a turtle population in a protected area due to
occasional poaching.
Decreased water quality, trampling, or other recreational impacts
purportedly threaten 22 percent of the petitioned species including the
Bigcheek cave crayfish, Blue Spring hydrobe snail, and small-flower
meadow-beauty.
Logging
The petition asserts that southeastern aquatic and riparian species
are threatened by the loss of forests and the negative effects of these
losses on water quality and aquatic habitats that result from logging
activities and canopy removal. The Southeast now supplies nearly 70
percent of the nation's pulp and paper products (Buckner et al. 2002).
According to Folkerts (1997), the rate of deforestation in the
Southeast at that time exceeded that of any tropical area of comparable
size. The Tennessee, Cumberland, and Mobile basins have experienced a
drastic increase in large clearcutting operations and chip mills, with
1.2 million acres of forest being cut annually to supply 150 regional
chip mills, two-thirds of which have been built since the 1980s
(Buckner et al. 2002). In the area surrounding Great Smoky Mountain
National Park, the rate of logging doubled from 1980 to 1990 (Folkerts
1997). Of the 70 million acres of longleaf pine forest which once
covered over 40 percent of the Southeastern Coastal Plain, only 1 to 2
percent remains, and the remnant acreage is fragmented and ``poorly-
managed'' (Noss et al. 1995; Dodd 1997). Clearcutting on the Coastal
Plain has affected ``virtually every aquatic habitat in the area''
(Folkerts 1997).
According to the petition, logging has many direct and indirect
negative effects on aquatic biota across taxa. Erosion from poor
forestry practices degrades water quality (Williams et al. 1993).
Increased sedimentation from logging can suffocate aquatic snails and
their eggs, preclude their ability to feed, and extirpate populations
(Frest and Johannes 1993). Increased
[[Page 59848]]
sedimentation is also harmful to freshwater mussels (Neves et al.
1997). Clearcutting and conversion of deciduous forests to pine
plantations increases sedimentation and reduces the input of large
woody debris and leaf litter into streams, which are necessary to
provide microhabitat and food for aquatic organisms (Morse et al. 1997;
Herrig and Shute 2002). Clearcutting can lead to the disappearance of
caddisflies and mayflies, with ramifications at higher levels of the
food web (Morse et al. 1997). Amphibian diversity and abundance is
reduced by clearcutting and the conversion of deciduous forests to pine
plantations (Dodd 1997; Herrig and Shute 2002). Aquatic-breeding
amphibians, which depend on ephemeral ponds or which are dependent on
forested habitats to complete their life cycle or both, are
particularly threatened by logging activities (Dodd 1997). Herbicides
used after timber harvests also negatively affect amphibians and other
aquatic organisms (Dodd 1997; Herrig and Shute 2002).
According to the petition, 51 percent of the petitioned species are
threatened by logging. Logging is the primary threat to the newly
discovered patch-nosed salamander, and to many of the petitioned
crayfishes, including the Irons Fork burrowing crayfish, Kisatchie
painted crayfish, and pristine crayfish. The petitioners assert that
logging also threatens the petitioned dragonflies, including Westfall's
clubtail and the Ozark emerald.
Agriculture and Aquaculture
According to the petition, southeastern aquatic species are also
threatened by the loss and degradation of habitat due to poor
agricultural practices. Intensive agriculture began in the Southeast in
the 1930s, and agriculture continues to extensively impact southeastern
aquatic ecosystems (Neves et al. 1997). The petitioners assert that
agriculture in the Southeast has a tremendous impact on aquatic
habitats both due to the extent of farmland and to farming practices
(Buckner et al. 2002; Herrig and Shute 2002). In the Tennessee,
Cumberland, and Mobile River basins, for example, farms cover nearly
half the landscape. Throughout the Southeast, fields are commonly
plowed to the edges of waterways, causing sedimentation and bank
collapse and facilitating the runoff of fertilizers and pesticides
(Buckner et al. 2002). Both traditional farming practices and confined
animal feeding operations contribute to water quality degradation and
the imperilment of indigenous biota in the Southeast through erosion,
sedimentation, and chemical and nutrient pollution from point and non-
point sources (Patrick 1992; Morse et al. 1997; Neves et al. 1997;
Herrig and Shute 2002).
According to the petition, 50 percent of the petitioned species are
threatened by conversion of their habitat to agricultural use or by
agricultural runoff, including the striated darter, Logan's agarodes
caddisfly, Sevier snowfly, and Tennessee clubtail. Agricultural land
uses have been associated with impairment of fish and macroinvertebrate
communities (Herrig and Shute 2002), communities of freshwater mollusks
(Williams et al. 1993; Neves et al. 1997), and threats to imperiled
amphibians (Herrig and Shute 2002).
Many of the petitioned species are allegedly threatened from
confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), including the Carolina
madtom, corpulent hornsnail, and the Neuse River waterdog. Confined
animal feeding operations and feedlots have caused extensive
degradation of southeastern aquatic ecosystems (Neves et al. 1997;
Buckner et al. 2002; Mallin and Cahoon 2003). The number of CAFOs in
the Southeast has increased drastically since 1990, as livestock
production has undergone extensive industrialization (Buckner et al.
2002; Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Alabama and Arkansas are now the
nation's leading poultry producers, with Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky
also among the top 10 States for poultry production (U.S. Census Bureau
2009). Poultry CAFOs are also abundant in North Carolina, Mississippi,
and Virginia (Mallin and Cahoon 2003). There are extensive swine CAFOs
in the North Carolina Coastal Plain, and North Carolina is now the
nation's second largest pork producer (Mallin and Cahoon 2003; U.S.
Census Bureau 2009). Confined animal feeding operations threaten
aquatic species both because of the vast amounts of fresh water
necessary to support their operation and due to pollution (Buckner et
al. 2002). Confined animal feeding operations house thousands of
animals and produce a large amount of waste, which enters the
environment either by being directly discharged into streams or
constructed ditches, stored in open lagoons, or applied to fields in
wet or dry form (Buckner et al. 2002; Mallin and Cahoon 2003; Orlando
et al. 2004). Confined animal feeding operation wastes contain
nutrients, pharmaceuticals, and hormones, and result in eutrophication
(a choking of waters by excessive algae growth which has been
stimulated by fertilizers or sewage) of waterways, toxic blooms of
algae and dinoflagellates, and endocrine disruption in downstream
wildlife (Mallin and Cahoon 2002; Orlando et al. 2004).
Both livestock holding lots and landscape grazing degrade habitats
in the Southeast, according to the petitioners (Buckner et al. 2002;
Herrig and Shute 2002). Several southeastern States produce large
amounts of cattle and horses feeding them via both grazing and holding
lots (Buckner et al. 2002; U.S. Census Bureau 2009). Livestock are
generally allowed to wade directly into streams, trampling habitat and
resulting in erosion and nutrient contamination (Buckner et al. 2002).
The effects of livestock grazing on stream and riparian ecosystems are
well documented and include negative effects on water quality and
quantity, channel morphology, hydrology, soils, instream and streambank
vegetation, and aquatic and riparian wildlife (Belsky et al. 1999).
According to Frest (2002), snails and their habitats are harmed through
direct trampling, soil compaction, erosion, water siltation and
pollution, and drying up of springs and seeps. The petitioners claim
that 14 percent of the petitioned species are threatened by grazing,
including the Virginia stone (stonefly), Barrens darter, Cherokee
clubtail (dragonfly), and many plants, including the eared coneflower.
The petition alleges that aquaculture poses an additional threat to
aquatic species in the Southeast. According to Tucker and Hargreaves
(2003), catfish farming is the largest aquaculture enterprise in the
United States, with 95 percent of production occurring in Alabama,
Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Similarly, crayfish farming in
Louisiana is the nation's second largest aquaculture enterprise, with
over 49,000 hectares of crayfish ponds (Holdich 1993). According to the
petitioners, aquaculture threatens aquatic habitats through habitat
conversion; the withdrawal, diversion, or impoundment of natural
waterways to support operations; and the release of effluent to
waterbodies (Naylor et al. 2001). Water quality degradation threatens
southeastern aquatic insect populations (Herrig and Shute 2002).
Impoundments and diversions alter water chemistry and flow, and can be
detrimental to native mollusks and fishes (Morse et al. 1997; Neves et
al. 1997). The construction of shrimp farms in wetlands and estuaries
also destroys and degrades habitat for native aquatic species (Hopkins
et al. 1995).
[[Page 59849]]
Mining and Oil and Gas Development
According to the petition, mining for coal, gravel, limestone,
phosphate, iron, and other raw materials poses a dire threat to many
aquatic species in the Southeast (Dodd 1997; Buckner 2002), and 29
percent of the petitioned species are threatened by mining and oil and
gas development. Extensive strip mining for coal occurs in West
Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama (Dodd 1997). As of
2004, more than 1.1 million acres of land in Appalachia were undergoing
active mining operations (Loveland et al. 2003), and the EPA projects
that from 1992 to 2013, 761,000 acres of Appalachian forest will be
lost to surface coal mining (Pomponio 2009). Up to 23 percent of the
land area of some counties in Kentucky and West Virginia has been
permitted for surface coal mining (U.S. Government Accountability
Office 2009). Mining increases the potential for extreme flooding
events, and reclamation does not restore pre-mining hydrologic
characteristics or ecological functions (Townsend et al. 2009).
Mining often occurs directly through streams or ponds, and mine
wastes are pushed directly into streams and rivers (Dodd 1997; EPA
2005). From 1992 to 2002, more than 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams
were buried or degraded by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005).
This figure does not incorporate the thousands of miles of downstream
reaches that have been substantially degraded by sedimentation and
chemical pollution from coal mining (Palmer and Bernhardt 2009;
Pomponio 2009; Palmer et al. 2010). According to the petitioners, in
the Clinch and Powell watersheds of southwestern Virginia, where the
highest concentration of imperiled species in the continental United
States occurs (Stein et al. 2000), there were 287 active coal-mining
point source discharges as of 2002 (Diamond et al. 2002), which are
degrading habitat for imperiled species (Ahlstedt et al. 2005). The
petitioners allege that 30 of the petitioned species are specifically
threatened by mountaintop removal.
Coal mining negatively impacts aquatic species through direct
habitat destruction, decreased water availability, variations in flow
and thermal gradients, and chronic and acute pollution of surface and
ground water (FWS 1996; Neves et al. 1997; Houp 1993; Pond et al. 2008;
Palmer and Bernhardt 2009; Pomponio 2009; Wood 2009; Palmer et al.
2010). Pollution from mining adversely impacts invertebrates and
vertebrates, and leads to less diverse and more pollution-tolerant
species (Naimo 1995; Cherry et al. 2001; EPA 2005; Lemly 2009; Pomponio
2009). The petitioners allege that surface coal mining and associated
road building increase human access to imperiled species, which can
lead to poaching and contribute to the spread of invasive species (FWS
1996). Surface coal mining also causes long-term changes in land use
and local ecology, and threatens the long-term viability of populations
due to habitat fragmentation (FWS 1996).
The petition alleges that coal mining negatively impacts diatoms (a
major group of algae) and macroinvertebrates (Serveiss 2001; Locke et
al. 2006; Carlisle et al. 2008; Pond et al. 2008), amphibian diversity
and abundance (EPA 2005; Wood 2009; Palmer and Bernhardt 2009), and the
index of fish biotic integrity (Diamond and Serveiss 2001). The
petition states that coal mining is also reported to cause reproductive
failure in riparian birds (Lemly 1985; Ohlendorf 1989).
According to the petition, other forms of mining and oil and gas
development are also causing severe degradation of aquatic habitats:
In-stream gravel mining and rock removal fragment and destroy habitat
for aquatic insects, crayfish, mussels, and fish (Buckner et al. 2002);
and sand and gravel mining have been associated with both on- and off-
site mussel extirpation (Hartfield 1993), and with decreased downstream
mussel growth rates (Yokley 1976). The petitioners allege that many
species are threatened by sand and gravel mining, including the
cobblestone tiger beetle, bluestripe darter, hellbender (salamander),
and many mussels and snails. Historic phosphate and iron mines resulted
in precipitous declines in mussel populations (Ortmann 1924). Mining of
industrial minerals such as kaolin, mica, and feldspar also results in
loss and degradation of habitat for aquatic species (Tennessee Valley
Authority 1971; EPA 1977; Duda and Penrose 1980). The petition alleges
that kaolin mining threatens the petitioned mussel, the Alabama spike,
and the petitioned fish, the robust redhorse, and that oil and gas
development threatens many of the petitioned mussels.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition stated that all 15 amphibians petitioned (13 of which
are subjects of this finding) were threatened by overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; in
addition this factor threatens 1 beetle (Cobblestone tiger beetle), 2
birds (Florida sandhill crane and black rail), 1 butterfly (rare
skipper), 1 crayfish (Big Blue Springs Cave crayfish), 2 dragonflies
(Septima's clubtail and Appalachian snaketail), 5 fish (northern
cavefish, Carolina pygmy sunfish, robust redhorse, orangefin madtom,
and bluehead shiner), 6 mussels (brook floater, brother spike, Suwannee
moccasinshell, Tennessee clubshell, warrior pigtoe, and pyramid
pigtoe), 11 reptiles (Kirtland's snake, western chicken turtle, Florida
Keys mole skink, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, Pascagoula
map turtle, black-knobbed map turtle, Alabama map turtle, striped mud
turtle--lower Florida Keys, Florida red-bellied turtle--Florida
panhandle, and northern red-bellied cooter), and 7 vascular plants
(Baptisia megacarpa, Epidendrum strobiliferum, Hymenocallis henryae,
Illicium parviflorum, Lilium iridollae, Oncidium undulatum, and
Sarracenia purpurea var. montana).
The petition alleges overutilization is the primary threat for the
hellbender salamander, which is commonly killed by fishermen.
Collection for the pet trade threatens a few of the petitioned fishes,
crayfishes, and amphibians. Historical overuse greatly threatened many
of the petitioned mussels, fishes, and the Florida sandhill crane.
Throughout the Southeast, reptiles are exploited for use as pets or
food, or are killed for recreational purposes, which may all cause
significant population declines. The petitioners allege that many
southeastern turtle species, such as the Florida red-bellied turtle,
Pascagoula map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, and black-knobbed map
turtle, are threatened by over-collection because they are commonly
harvested for food, the pet trade, or recreation. Several southeastern
turtle species are being driven to extinction by unregulated commercial
harvest. The petition alleges that the States of Arkansas, Kentucky,
Georgia, Louisiana, and Tennessee allow unlimited harvest of freshwater
turtles. The international trade in turtles for use as food, as pets,
or in traditional medicine is extensive and largely unregulated
(Buhlman and Gibbons 1997; Sarma 1999). Records indicate that the trade
in live turtles from the United States to China is thousands of tons
per year. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency reports that more
than 25,000 turtles were reported as harvested in Tennessee from 2006
to 2007. Overutilization of imperiled turtle species is especially
problematic because the reproductive
[[Page 59850]]
success of long-lived reptile species is dependent on high adult
survivorship, and population declines occur when adults are harvested
(Brooks et al. 1991; Heppell 1998; Pough et al. 1998; Congdon et al.
1993, 1994).
Over-collection and recreational killing are also a threat to some
southeastern snake and lizard species (Gibbons et al. 2000; Herrig and
Shute 2002). The Kirtland's snake, and the Florida Keys mole skink are
all threatened by over collection (NatureServe 2008).
The petition alleges that southeastern mussels are also threatened
by overutilization, although to a lesser extent than in the past (Neves
et al. 1997). The harvest of southeastern mussels for commercial
purposes is well documented (Anthony and Downing 2001; Williams et al.
2008). Mussels are collected for their pearls, meat, and shells, and
many populations of mussels have been depleted by harvest in the last
200 years (Strayer 2006). Although mussel fisheries targeted abundant
species, the historical bycatch of rare species was likely substantial
(Strayer 2006). Mussel collections declined by mid-century, but a
resurgence in the commercial harvest has occurred since the 1960s to
supply nucleus seeds for the cultured pearl trade (Ward 1985; Williams
et al. 1993). In 1991 and 1992, 570 tons of shells were harvested from
the Wheeler Reservoir on the Tennessee River (Williams et al. 2008).
Most harvested mussels are common species, but bycatch remains a threat
to native mussels.
Imperiled native mussels are threatened not only by the amount of
harvest, but also by the method used to collect shells, which when
conducted non-selectively, can result in substantial bycatch of non-
target species and juveniles (Williams et al. 1993). Although unwanted
mussels are thrown back, Sickel (1989) found that mortality of
undersized mussels that are thrown back may be as high as 50 percent.
Very rare species of mussels are also threatened by over-collection
from shell collectors and biologists for biological collections.
Overutilization for biological collections may have contributed
significantly to the decline of the Suwannee moccasinshell (NatureServe
2008).
Other southeastern taxa are also threatened by overexploitation,
including fish, amphibians, crayfish, butterflies, and plants.
Amphibians are threatened by over-collection for use as food, for the
pet trade, and for the biological and medicinal supply markets (Dodd
1997; Amphibia Web 2009). Southeastern fish and crayfishes are
vulnerable to overutilization. Crayfishes are threatened by collection
for use as bait or food (Herrig and Shute 2002). The Carolina pygmy
sunfish (Elassoma boelhkei) is threatened by over-collection for the
pet trade (NatureServe 2008). Collection of invertebrates for bait or
the pet trade can deplete populations (Strayer 2006). Collection also
threatens the rare skipper (Problema bulenta) (NatureServe 2008). White
et al. (2002) documented the removal of an entire population of
Panhandle lily (Lilium iridollae) from the Conecuh National Forest by
horticultural collectors.
The petition alleges that the impacts of overutilization compound
the threats facing imperiled southeastern species whose populations
have already been reduced due to habitat loss or other factors.
Overutilization may drive species that are already struggling to
survive to extinction.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
The petition stated that disease or predation threatened 11
amphibians addressed in this finding (streamside salamander, one-toed
amphiuma, hellbender, Cumberland dusky salamander, seepage salamander,
Chamberlain's dwarf salamander, Oklahoma salamander, Tennessee cave
salamander, West Virginia Spring salamander, Georgia blind salamander,
and Neuse River waterdog), 3 birds (MacGillivray's seaside sparrow,
Florida sandhill crane, and black rail), 8 fish (Carolina pygmy
sunfish, candy darter, paleback darter, Shawnee darter, Barrens
topminnow, robust redhorse, Carolina madtom, and bluehead shiner), 1
mammal (Sherman's short-tailed shrew), 6 mussels (Tennessee
heelsplitter, Cumberland moccasinshell, Tennessee clubshell, Tennessee
pigtoe, purple lilliput, and Savannah lilliput), 6 reptiles (Kirtland's
snake, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, Pascagoula map
turtle, Florida red-bellied turtle, and northern red-bellied cooter),
and 6 vascular plants (Lilium iridollae (Panhandle lily), Najas
filifolia (narrowleaf naiad), Rudbeckia auriculata (eared coneflower),
Schoenoplectus hallii (Hall's bulrush), Sideroxylon thornei (swamp
buckhorn or Georgia bully), Tsuga caroliniana (Carolina hemlock)).
Disease
According to the petition, the spread of disease has contributed to
the decline of aquatic species globally and in the southeastern United
States (Daszak et al. 1999; Corser 2000; Gibbons et al. 2000;
Cunningham et al. 2003). Amphibians, in particular, have been decimated
by the spread of disease (Kiesecker et al. 2004). Numerous diseases are
contributing to amphibian declines, including infections of fungi
(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis ``chytrid''; Saprolegnia), ranavirises,
iridovirises, mesomycetozoea, protozoa, helminthes, and undescribed
diseases (Dodd 1997; Daszak et al. 1999; Briggs et al. 2005; Davis et
al. 2007; Peterson et al. 2007). Chytrid fungus affects not only frogs
but has also now been reported in both aquatic and terrestrial
salamanders (Davidson et al. 2003; Cummer et al. 2005; Padgett-Flohr
and Longcore 2007). The decline of map turtles, musk turtles, snapping
turtles, and pond turtles is partially attributable to disease (Dodd
1988; Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997). Southeastern freshwater fishes are
also threatened by diseases, which are being spread by aquaculture
operations and in shipments between fish hatcheries (Kautsky et al.
2000; Naylor et al. 2001; Strayer 2006; Green and Dodd 2007).
The petition alleges that other threats exacerbate the
vulnerability of southeastern aquatic fauna to disease and population
decline. The hellbender, which is threatened by both habitat loss and
overuse, is also threatened by disease. Reptile declines have also been
attributed to disease (Diemer Berish et al. 2000; Gibbons et al. 2000).
In freshwater fishes, stress-related diseases are prevalent in polluted
rivers, where chronic, sub-lethal pollution has increased the
susceptibility of organisms to infection (Moyle and Leidy 1992).
Predation
According to the petition, predation threatens several of the
petitioned species, including reptiles, amphibians, birds, plants,
fishes, crayfishes, and mollusks. Heavy predation of turtle nests by
raccoons can be a primary factor limiting recruitment of imperiled
turtle populations (Browne and Hecnar 2007). At least two of the
petitioned bird species are threatened by predation. MacGillivray's
seaside sparrow is threatened by predation from rice rats (Post and
Greenlaw 1994). The black rail is threatened from predation from
various species during high tides, when the rails are forced away from
cover (Evans and Page 1986). Two of the petitioned plant species are
threatened by predation. Hall's bulrush is threatened by predation from
mute swans and Canada geese (McKenzie et al. 2007). The Panhandle lily
is threatened by predation from cattle grazing and potentially by
insect herbivory (Barrows 1989). Southeastern fishes, amphibians, and
crayfishes are
[[Page 59851]]
threatened by predation from native and nonnative fishes and crayfishes
(NatureServe 2008). The streamside salamander is threatened by
predation from fish, flatworms, and water snakes (Petranka 1983;
AmphibiaWeb 2009). Predation can contribute heavily to the decline of
imperiled mussels because of their restricted distributions and small
population sizes (NatureServe 2008, Rock pocketbook species account).
Imperiled southeastern mussels are threatened by predation from fishes,
muskrats, raccoons, otter, mink, turtles, and some birds (Neves and
Odom 1989; Parmalee 1967; Snyder and Snyder 1969). A number of fish
species, including catfishes (Ictalurus ssp. and Amieurus ssp.) and
freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) consume large numbers of
unionid mussels at certain life stages (NatureServe 2008). As
populations of imperiled mussels continue to decline, predation becomes
an increasing threat. For example, the only viable population of the
Savannah lilliput in North Carolina is threatened by predation from
raccoons (Hanlon and Levine 2004). According to the petition, the
petitioned fish, Barrens topminnow, is threatened by predation from
introduced mosquitofish.
Disease and predation, alone and in conjunction with other factors,
pose serious threats to the survival of many of the petitioned species
and are magnified by other environmental stressors such as habitat
loss, pollution, invasive species, and climate change (Gibbons et al.
2000; Pounds et al. 2006).
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms threaten
all the petitioned species, with the following five exceptions: Linda's
roadside-skipper, least crayfish, Broad River spiny crayfish, Chowanoke
crayfish, and Tallapoosa orb.
Inadequacy of Existing Federal Regulatory Mechanisms
According to the petition, the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) provides a basic level of water quality protection
for imperiled southeastern species, but is inadequate to ensure their
continued survival. Pollution from point and non-point sources is
causing ongoing degradation of water quality, current water quality
standards are not effectively protecting sensitive species or sensitive
developmental stages of species, and loss of stream and wetland habitat
continues. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and individual
States regulate point sources of pollution under the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), under which point sources are
licensed and maximum pollutant discharge concentrations are set. The
NPDES system is not adequate to protect the petitioned species from the
negative effects of pollution because permits may be issued with few
restrictions, cumulative effects of all the point sources within a
watershed are not taken into consideration when permits are issued, and
State governments often lack the resources or political will to monitor
and enforce permits (Buckner et al. 2002).
The petition claims that existing regulations are also inadequate
to protect aquatic species from non-point sources of pollution such as
agricultural, residential, and urban runoff. Agricultural runoff
accounts for over 70 percent of impaired U.S. river kilometers, yet is
largely exempt from permitting requirements (Neves et al. 1997).
Existing regulatory mechanisms are also inadequate to protect
southeastern aquatic species from accidental spills from retention
ponds, which are used to store wastes from agriculture, coal-fired
power plants, coal mining, and other activities (Herrig and Shute
2002), and to prevent the continued loss of stream and wetland habitat
from fills. In Appalachia, from 1992 to 2002, the EPA permitted the
filling of more than 1,200 miles of headwater streams for surface coal
mining activities (EPA 2005). The permitted filling of streams for
surface coal mining is causing permanent downstream pollution and loss
of biodiversity (Neves et al. 1997; Pond et al. 2008; Pomponio 2009;
Wood 2009; Palmer et al. 2010).
The permitted filling of wetlands is also ongoing. While section
404 of the CWA sets as a goal no net loss of wetlands, this is not a
required outcome of permit decisions (Connolly et al. 2005). In fiscal
year 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued 4,035 permits for
the destruction of natural wetlands, while denying only 299 permits
(Connolly et al. 2005). Lost wetlands are required to be replaced by
mitigation wetlands, but mitigation wetlands often differ in structure,
function, and community composition from the natural wetlands that are
destroyed (Holland et al. 1995). Mitigation requirements are also not
strictly enforced. Mitigation is rarely effective in preserving
biodiversity (Cabbage et al. 1993; Water Environment Federation 1993).
Many species of amphibians, reptiles, and insects require both wetland
and upland habitat to complete their life cycles, and wetland
protection criteria do not protect the upland habitats these species
need to survive (Dodd 1997).
The petition alleges that the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) does not
adequately protect aquatic species due to increased demands for coal,
lax enforcement of environmental laws, and deference to economic
development over species' protection. Sedimentation from active mines
is a primary contributor to the decline of mollusks due to water
quality degradation, shell erosion, and reproductive failure (Anderson
1989; Houp 1993; Neves et al. 1993). Reclamation required under SMCRA
is not rigorously enforced (Ward 2009), and even when reclamation is
conducted, it has not resulted in the restoration of pre-mining
hydrologic characteristics or ecological functions (Townsend et al.
2009).
The petition alleges that management of National Wildlife Refuges,
National Recreation Areas, National Forests, and Wild and Scenic Rivers
fails to adequately protect the petitioned species for a variety of
reasons, including lack of fiscal resources, threats from climate
change, invasive species, recreation, poaching, and conflicting
resource mandates (such as timber production and recreation).
Inadequacy of Existing State Regulatory Mechanisms
According to the petition, some of the petitioned species are
listed as endangered or threatened by State fish, wildlife, and game
departments, but State endangered and threatened species designations
generally do not provide species with meaningful regulatory protections
or with any habitat protection. Many of the species petitioned are
classified as Species of Conservation Priority or Species of Greatest
Conservation Need under State Wildlife Action Plans or Wildlife
Conservation Strategies. These documents provide a framework for
conservation, but are not regulatory documents and do not contain
mandatory or enforceable provisions to protect species or their
habitats. Further, the implementation of conservation strategies is
dependent on the cooperation of resource managers and stakeholders,
making their implementation and effectiveness uncertain.
State conservation priorities and initiatives are also sharply
limited by funding, with charismatic and game species generally
receiving the majority of resources, and the focus generally
[[Page 59852]]
being on vertebrates, which makes these priorities and initiatives
inadequate to protect imperiled invertebrate species. Additionally,
some States have regulations to protect some wildlife from direct take,
but these regulations are not comprehensive, are generally poorly
enforced, and are not adequate to protect wildlife from other threats
(FWS 1997).
Other Regulatory Mechanisms and Protections
According to the petition, the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) conveys some degree
of protection to a few of the petitioned species listed under it, but
it is inadequate to ensure their continued survival. For example,
highly sought-after species such as rare map turtles are threatened by
the international pet trade despite being protected under CITES
(NatureServe 2008). Likewise, habitat preserves alone are insufficient
to protect imperiled species. While habitat protection is an essential
component of species' preservation, threats from a host of other
factors, including climate change, poaching, pollution, and genetic
isolation due to lack of habitat connectivity, influence habitat
conditions and the success of the preservation efforts.
Land Ownership Patterns
The majority of land in the Southeast is privately owned. Private
land use is either not regulated or only loosely regulated throughout
much of the region (Buckner et al. 2002). According to the petition,
most southeastern forests are in private ownership, and forestry best
management practices to control erosion and protect aquatic resources
are not mandated or voluntarily followed in the majority of
southeastern forests. In addition, extensive clearcutting and poor
logging practices threaten aquatic resources due to sedimentation,
landslides, and degraded water quality (Buckner et al. 2002).
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species'
Continued Existence
The petition states that other natural or manmade factors,
including pollution, global climate change, drought, invasive species,
and synergies between multiple threats, threatened 13 of 15 amphibians,
1 amphipod (tidewater amphipod), 1 beetle (Avernus cave beetle), 3
birds (MacGillivray's seaside sparrow, Florida sandhill crane, and
black rail), 4 butterflies (Linda's roadside-skipper, Duke's skipper,
Palatka skipper, and rare skipper), 2 caddisflies (Morse's little plain
brown sedge and setose cream and brown mottled microcaddisfly), 43 of
83 crayfish, 3 dragonflies (Cherokee clubtail, Septima's clubtail,
Appalachian snaketail), 43 of 47 fish, 3 mammals (Pine Island oryzomys
or marsh rice rat, Sanibel Island oryzomys or marsh rice rat, insular
cotton rat), 1 moth (Louisiana eyed silkmoth), 35 of 48 mussels, 3 non-
vascular plants (Fissidens appalachensis (Appalachian fissidens moss),
Fissidens hallii (Hall's pocket moss), and Phaeophyscia leana (Lea's
bog lichen)), 9 reptiles (Kirtland's snake, western chicken turtle,
Florida Keys mole skink, Escambia map turtle, Pascagoula map turtle,
black-knobbed map turtle, Alabama map turtle, striped mud turtle,
northern red-bellied cooter), 27 of 44 snails, 1 stonefly (Smokies
needlefly), and 31 of 76 vascular plants.
Pollution
According to the petition, pollution threatens two-thirds of the
petitioned species, including 81 percent of the wildlife. Southeastern
waterways are degraded by point and non-point source pollution from a
variety of sources including agriculture, forestry, urban and suburban
development, coal mining, and coal combustion wastes. Non-point source
pollution, or runoff, is difficult to document, but its impact on
aquatic species is both pervasive and persistent (Schuster 1997). Non-
point source pollution is the most common factor adversely impacting
the nation's fish communities, with more than 80 percent of fish
negatively affected (Judy et al. 1982). Both non-point and point source
pollution are pushing southeastern aquatic species towards extinction
by carrying sediments, contaminants, nutrients, and other pollutants
into waterways.
Sedimentation, Contamination, and Nutrient Loading
The petition alleges sedimentation is one of the primary causes of
habitat degradation in southeastern waterways (Neves et al. 1997).
Sedimentation and siltation result from a variety of activities
including agriculture, forestry, development, and mining, with silt
reaching the waterways during both ground-disturbing activities and
storm events (FWS 2000). Suspended sediments threaten the entire
aquatic community, from fish to invertebrates to birds.
In the Southeast, sedimentation is responsible for nearly 40
percent of fish imperilment problems (Etnier 1997). It both directly
and indirectly adversely affects fish. Suspended sediments cut and clog
gills and interfere with respiration. Sedimentation blocks light
penetration, which interferes with feeding for species like minnows and
darters, which feed by sight (Etnier and Starnes 1993). For species
that feed by flipping over rocks and consuming the disturbed insects,
sedimentation increases the embeddedness of rocks, making them more
difficult to move and decreasing habitat suitability for aquatic
invertebrate prey (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Sedimentation also
interferes with feeding behavior for nocturnal feeders like catfish and
imperiled madtoms, which catch aquatic insects by relying on the
sensitivity of their barbells and on chemoreceptors, both of which are
negatively affected by sedimentation (Todd 1973; Buckner et al. 2002).
Benthic species require specific substrate conditions for spawning,
feeding, and cover, all of which are degraded by sedimentation (Etnier
and Starnes 1993; Warren et al. 1997). When sedimentation fills in the
crevices between and beneath rocks, it decreases the availability of
cover for resting and predator evasion (Herrig and Shute 2002).
Madtoms, darters, suckers, and some minnows deposit their eggs on or
near the substrate, and sedimentation interferes with their
reproduction both by decreasing habitat suitability and by directly
smothering eggs. Benthic fishes are also negatively affected by toxins
stored in sediments (Reice and Wohlenberg 1993). Ultimately, excessive
sedimentation can eliminate fish species from an area by rendering
their habitat unsuitable (FWS 2000).
Similarly, excessive sedimentation has strong, persistent, negative
effects on freshwater invertebrates (Strayer 2006). Siltation is one of
the primary factors implicated in the decline of freshwater mollusks
(Williams et al. 1993). Suspended sediments have both direct and
indirect negative effects on mollusks. Sedimentation clogs the gills of
mollusks and can cause suffocation (FWS 2000). Sedimentation reduces
feeding efficiency both by interfering with respiration of filter
feeders and by coating algae, which snails scrape from rocks (FWS
2000). Decreased visibility due to sedimentation can interfere with
mussel reproduction by making it difficult for host fishes to detect
glochidia (Neves et al. 1997). Sedimentation also reduces substrate
suitability (Herrig and Shute 2002).
The petition also alleges that aquatic insects are threatened by
excessive sediment levels. Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and mayflies
(Ephemeroptera) are intolerant of siltation and disappear from impacted
streams (Morse et al. 1997). Increased siltation impacts the
[[Page 59853]]
ability of dragonflies and damselflies to survive (Morse et al. 1997).
Caddisflies, which require spaces among rocks for shelter and stable
surfaces for grazing, are also negatively impacted by siltation (Morse
et al. 1997). Sedimentation and other pollutants from mountaintop-
removal coal mining operations are extirpating aquatic
macroinvertebrate communities. In some streams that drain mountaintop-
removal operations, entire orders of Plecoptera and Ephemeroptera have
been extirpated (Wood 2009). Sedimentation is also negatively impacting
rare ground-water inhabiting species of isopods and amphipods (Herrig
and Shute 2002).
According to the petition, in addition to sediments, contaminants
such as heavy metals, pesticides, and persistent organic pollutants
threaten aquatic species. In a nationwide assessment of streambed
sediment contaminants, the EPA found that 43 percent of sediments are
probably associated with harmful effects on aquatic life or human
health, and that 6 to 10 percent of streambed sediment is sufficiently
contaminated to cause significant lethality to benthic organisms (EPA
2004b). Southeastern rivers are laden with a variety of toxic
chemicals, with the lower Mississippi River receiving contaminants from
half the continent (Folkerts 1997). Contaminants have both lethal and
sub-lethal negative effects on aquatic species and may interfere with
immunity, growth, and reproduction (Colborn et al. 1993; Gibbons et al.
2000). Selenium contamination from surface coal mining is causing
teratogenic (developmental malformations) deformities in larval fish
(Palmer et al. 2010). The negative effects of many contaminants will
persist for centuries (Folkerts 1997).
Aquatic species are threatened both by chronic low-level
contaminant pollution and acute exposure from accidental spills. For
example, in 2009, a wastewater spill from a coal mine on the West
Virginia-Pennsylvania border killed all the fish, salamanders, and
mussels in 35 miles of 38-mile-long Dunkard Creek (Hopey 2009). Endemic
species are particularly at high risk from accidental spills. Because
many aquatic species exist only in small, isolated populations, a
single spill event could drive a species to extinction.
The petition alleges that contaminants threaten all taxa of aquatic
species. Declines in many fish species are attributed to chronic, sub-
lethal pollution, which causes reduced growth, reduced reproductive
success, and increased risk of death from stress-related diseases
(Moyle and Leidy 1992). Cave fishes and other species that are directly
dependent on groundwater levels are disproportionately threatened by
contaminants that become concentrated if there is a reduction in the
volume of springflow (Herrig and Shute 2002). Chemoreception in blind
cave fishes can be disrupted by contaminants from surface aquifer
recharge areas (Herrig and Shute 2002). Chronic low-level exposure to
contaminants may be preventing the recovery of imperiled species of
mollusks (FWS 1997). Juvenile mussels are sensitive to heavy metals and
other pollutants (Naimo 1995; Neves et al. 1997). Amphibians are
particularly sensitive to contaminants as all life stages are sensitive
to toxins (AmphibiaWeb 2009). Many substances can be toxic to
amphibians including heavy metals, pesticides, phenols, fertilizers,
road salt, mining waste, and chemicals in runoff (Dodd 1997). Changes
in pH can adversely affect amphibian eggs and larvae, and can inhibit
growth and feeding in adults (Dodd 1997). Amphibians are threatened by
accidental and intentional pesticide treatments.
Contaminants negatively impact aquatic species at the level of
individuals, populations, and species. Fish, turtles, and other aquatic
animals assimilate pesticides, heavy metals, and other persistent
pollutants into their tissues (Buhlman and Gibbons 1997; de Solla and
Fernie 2004). Animals at higher levels of the food chain can accumulate
considerable levels of toxins. Significant concentrations of numerous
contaminants have been detected in southeastern freshwater turtles
including pesticides such as: aldrin, chlordane,
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin, endrin, mirex,
nonachlor, and toxaphene; and metals such as: Aluminum, barium,
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum,
nickel, strontium, and zinc (Meyers-Sch[ouml]ne and Walton 1994).
Contaminant exposure can disrupt normal endocrine functioning,
threatening reproduction and survival (Colborn et al. 1993). Turtles
exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have exhibited sex reversal
and abnormal gonadal development, and alligators exposed to various
contaminants have shown altered testosterone levels and gonadal
abnormalities (Guillette et al. 1994, 1995). Water snakes in wetlands
that have been contaminated with coal ash exhibit altered metabolic
activity (Hopkins et al. 1999). Endocrine disruption caused by
contaminants can lead to demographic shifts in aquatic reptile
populations (Gibbons et al. 2000). Bioaccumulation of contaminants has
contributed to the decline of map turtles, musk turtles, snapping
turtles, and pond turtles (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997).
The petition alleges that nutrient loading also threatens
southeastern aquatic species. Excessive nitrates and phosphates
entering waterways from point and non-point sources can lead to algal
blooms, eutrophication, and depleted dissolved oxygen, which can be
lethal to aquatic organisms (Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Some algal blooms
are toxic and can cause direct mortality. The toxic dinoflagellates
(Pfiesteria piscicida and P. shumwayae) have bloomed downstream of
CAFOs in the Neuse, New, and Pamlico River estuaries in North Carolina
(Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Even at sub-lethal levels, nutrient loading
threatens aquatic species via many mechanisms. For example, excessive
phosphate levels, especially in combination with the herbicide
atrazine, have been shown to increase nematode infections in
amphibians, leading to amphibian deformities (Johnson and Sutherland
2003; Rohr et al. 2008).
Sources of Nutrients, Contaminants, Sediments, and Other Pollutants
The petition claims that agriculture, forestry, urban and
industrial development, coal mining and processing, and coal combustion
all contribute to nutrient loading, contaminants, sediments, and other
pollutants that make their way into southeastern waterways. In the
Southeast, agricultural fields are commonly plowed to the edge of
rivers and streams, which results in erosion and stream bank collapse
and deposits tons of soil into waterways annually. Agricultural runoff
carries sediment, pesticides, fertilizers, animal wastes, pathogens,
salts, and petroleum particles into waterways.
The petition claims that atrazine is the most commonly detected
pesticide in U.S. waters and is pervasively found in surface waters of
the southern States, with the chemical being detected in every
watershed sampled (EPA 2007; Wu et al. 2009). According to the
petition, concentrations of atrazine in various southeastern waterways
exceed levels harmful to non-vascular plants and aquatic biota (U.S.
EPA 2007; Wu et al. 2009). The toxic and endocrine-disrupting effects
of atrazine are well established (Wu et al. 2009) and include
detrimental reproductive effects.
According to the petition, animal holding lots and CAFOs produce
animal wastes that may be discharged directly into streams applied to
agricultural
[[Page 59854]]
fields, or stored in lagoons (Buckner et al. 2002). These wastes
contain enormous amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus, and these
nutrients enter the environment and contribute to the eutrophication of
waterbodies via runoff, via volatilization of ammonia, or by
percolating into groundwater (Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Extreme weather
events, lax management, and lagoon ruptures have led to acute pollution
events from CAFOs, which have resulted in fish kills and algal blooms
(Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Decaying carcasses from these operations also
produce a significant source of nutrient pollution. In addition to
nutrient loading, CAFOs release pharmaceuticals (growth promoters and
antibiotics) and hormones (estrogens and androgens) into aquatic
habitats (Orlando et al. 2004). These have led to endocrine disruption
in female turtles (Irwin et al. 2001), and disruption of the
reproductive biology of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) (Orlando
et al. 2004).
The petition asserts that wastewater from aquacultural facilities
also contributes significant amounts of sediments, nutrients,
pharmaceuticals, and pathogens to southeastern aquatic habitats (Tacon
and Forster 2003). Catfish farms, trout farms, and shrimp and crayfish
ponds all release nutrients to aquatic habitats when they are drained
or flushed during large rain events (Tucker and Hargreaves 2003; Morse
et al. 1997; Holdich 1993).
According to the petition, pollution from forestry and silviculture
affects the Mobile Basin. Logging and effluent from pulp mills
contribute sediments and herbicides to waterways, degrading habitat for
aquatic organisms. Erosion from deforestation and poor forestry
practices increases silt loading and makes stream bottoms unstable,
both of which threaten mollusks and other aquatic organisms (Williams
et al. 1993). Herbicides used to kill hardwoods and herbaceous
vegetation may be harmful to amphibians and other species (Dodd 1997),
and some herbicides are toxic to algae and interfere with aquatic
ecology (Austin et al. 1991).
Urban and industrial development is also cited in the petition as
contributing to pollution of southeastern aquatic habitats. Point
source pollution from manufacturing sites, power plants, and sewage
treatment plants is a major cause of aquatic habitat degradation (Morse
et al. 1997). Non-point source pollution in the form of runoff from
urban and industrial areas contributes sediment, contaminants,
nutrients, and other pollutants that can be harmful to aquatic
organisms and their habitats, including petroleum particles, highway
salts, silt, fertilizers, pesticides, surfactants, and pet wastes
(Neves et al. 1997; Buckner et al. 2002).
The petition states that coal mining and processing are a major
source of pollution in West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia,
Alabama, and Georgia. Contaminants from coal mining and processing
include sediments, metals, hydraulic fluids, frothing agents, modifying
reagents, pH regulators, dispersing agents, flocculants, and media
separators (Ahlstedt et al. 2005). Sediments, heavy metals, and other
pollutants from mining are one of the causal factors in mussel declines
(Houp 1993; Neves et al. 1997; Locke et al. 2006). Heavy metals,
including aluminum, cadmium, copper, iron, manganese, mercury,
selenium, sulfate, and zinc, are released into the environment and act
as metabolic poisons in freshwater species (Earle and Callaghan 1998),
and cause weight loss, altered enzyme activity and filtration rates,
and behavioral modifications (Naimo 1995). The effects of metals on
mussel feeding, growth, and reproduction can result in significant
consequences for mussel populations, and Naimo (1995) concludes that
the chronic, low-level exposure to toxic metals is partially
responsible for the widespread decline in species diversity and
population density of freshwater mussels. Selenium is particularly
prevalent in coal effluents and is associated with deformities and
reproductive failure in aquatic species (Lemly 2009; Pomponio 2009).
The petition also asserts that pollution, including sediments,
metals, acids, and other substances, in drainage from abandoned mined
lands negatively impacts aquatic species in a variety of ways from
acute toxicity to physical impacts from solid precipitants (Cherry et
al. 2001; Soucek et al. 2003). Surface waters receiving mine discharge
commonly have extremely low pH levels, below 3.0, with toxic impacts
extending several miles downstream (Soucek et al. 2003).
Coal combustion produces nitric and sulfuric acids, mercury, and
coal ash, that all negatively impact aquatic species (Fleischer et al.
1993). Nitric and sulfuric acids released from coal-fired power plants
cause acidification of water bodies. Streams and lakes in Great Smoky
Mountains National Park and elsewhere have been degraded by acid
precipitation (Morse et al. 1997). Phytoplankton is negatively affected
by acidification, which has ramifications throughout the food web (Dodd
1997). Acid precipitation harms caddisflies and stoneflies (Morse et
al. 1997). The petition claims that several of the petitioned insects,
including the Smokies snowfly and Smokies needlefly, are threatened by
acid deposition. Acidity in aquatic habitats can also result in direct
amphibian mortality, and plays a major role in limiting amphibian
distribution (Dodd 1997).
Coal combustion also releases mercury into the environment.
Atmospheric deposition of mercury is responsible for the contamination
of most waterways. In a U.S. Geological Survey study that examined
mercury in fish, sediments, and water drawn from 291 rivers and
streams, detectable mercury contamination was found in every single
fish sampled (Scudder et al. 2009). The highest concentrations among
all sampled sites occurred in fish from blackwater coastal-plain
streams draining forested lands or wetlands in Louisiana, Georgia,
Florida, and North and South Carolina, and from basins in the west with
gold or mercury mines or both. Mercury levels in fish at over 70
percent of the sites exceeded the levels of concern for the protection
of fish eating-mammals.
The combustion of coal produces over 129 million tons of solid
waste, or coal ash, annually (Eilperin 2009). Coal ash contains
concentrated levels of chlorine, zinc, copper, arsenic, lead, selenium,
mercury, and other toxic contaminants, and improper storage of coal
combustion waste has resulted in pollution of ground and surface waters
(EPA 2007b). There are 44 coal ash ponds in Kentucky alone. Hopkins et
al. (1999) reported behavioral, developmental, and metabolic
abnormalities in amphibians and reptiles in wetlands that have been
contaminated with coal combustion waste in South Carolina.
Global Climate Change and Drought
According to the petition, global climate change threatens all of
the petitioned species. Climate models project both continued warming
in all seasons across the Southeast, and an increase in the rate of
warming (Karl et al. 2009). The warming in air and water temperatures
will create stress for fish and wildlife. Increasing water temperatures
and declining dissolved oxygen levels in streams, lakes, and shallow
aquatic habitats will lead to fish kills and loss of aquatic species
diversity (Folkerts 1997; Karl et al. 2009). Climate change will alter
the distribution of native plants and animals and will lead to the
local loss of imperiled species and the
[[Page 59855]]
displacement of native species by invasives (Karl et al. 2009).
Climate change will increase both the incidence and severity of
droughts and major storm events in the Southeast (Karl et al. 2009).
The percentage of the Southeast region experiencing moderate to severe
drought has already increased over the past 3 decades (Karl et al.
2009). The threat to aquatic ecosystems posed by drought is magnified
both by climate change and by human population growth. Decreased water
availability coupled with human population growth will further stress
natural systems. Drought, and increased evaporation and
evapotranspiration due to warmer temperatures, will lead to decreased
groundwater recharge and potential saltwater intrusion in shallow
aquifers in many parts of the Southeast, further exacerbating threats
to aquatic organisms (Karl et al. 2009).
Intense drought and increasing temperatures resulting from climate
change will cause the drying of water bodies and the local or global
extinction of riparian and aquatic species (Karl et al. 2009). Declines
of mollusks as a direct result of drought have already been documented
(Golladay et al. 2004; Haag and Warren 2008). Populations of amphibians
dependent on consistent rainfall patterns for breeding, such as those
that breed in temporary ponds, could be extirpated by drought (Dodd
1997). Amphibian declines are already linked to climate change globally
(Pounds et al. 2006) and in the southeastern United States (Daszak et
al. 2005).
The warming climate will likely cause ecological zones to shift
upward in latitude and altitude, and species' persistence will depend
upon, among other factors, their ability to disperse to suitable
habitat (Peters and Darling 1985). Human modifications to waterways,
such as dams, and changes to the landscape, including extensive
development, will make dispersal of species to more suitable habitat
difficult to impossible (Strayer 2006; Buhlman and Gibbons 1997; FWS
2009). Many species of freshwater invertebrates are likely to go
extinct due to climate change (Strayer 2006). Freshwater mussels and
snails are capable of moving only short distances and are unlikely to
be able to adjust their ranges in response to climatic shifts (FWS
2009). The petitioners allege that deteriorating habitat conditions and
obstacles to dispersal place all of the petitioned species at risk of
extinction due to global climate change.
According to the petition, several of the coastal petitioned
species are threatened by sea level rise and increased storm intensity
resulting from global climate change, including the Florida Keys mole
skink, MacGillivray's seaside sparrow, and Louisiana eyed silkmoth.
Invasive Species
The petition alleges that invasive species are a major threat to
native aquatic plants and animals in the Southeast, and a known threat
for 96 of the petitioned species. Invasive species negatively affect
native species through competition, predation, and disease
introduction. Introduced Asian carp, which are used to control
trematodes in catfish ponds, have become established in rivers
throughout the Mississippi Basin, where they consume native mollusks
and compete for resources with native fishes (Naylor et al. 2001).
There are at least 30 species of invasive fish in the Tennessee and
Cumberland River basins, including carp, alewife, rainbow and brown
trout, striped bass, yellow perch, nonnative forms of muskellunge, and
walleye (Etnier 1997). Nonnative mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) have
been widely introduced for vector control and now compete with native
species for resources (Buckner et al. 2002). Game fish, such as trout
and bass, have been widely introduced and prey on native fish,
invertebrates, and amphibians (Herrig and Shute 2002; Kats and Ferrer
2003; Strayer 2006). Native fish fauna in southern Florida have been
displaced by tropical species, and more than 60 indigenous southeastern
fish species have been introduced to drainages where they are not
native (Warren Jr. et al. 1997).
According to the petition, freshwater mollusks are threatened both
by invasive fish and invasive mollusks. The introduction of nonnative
fishes such as the round goby has indirect negative effects on native
mussels due to negative impacts on their host fishes (NatureServe
2009). The invasion of nonindigenous mollusks is one of the primary
reasons for the decline of freshwater mussels (Williams et al. 1993).
Invasive mussels can reach densities of thousands per square meter,
outcompeting and literally covering native species (Williams et al.
1993).
The zebra mussel has been detected in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia
(NatureServe 2009). Zebra mussels infest most major Mississippi River
tributaries, including the Ohio, Tennessee, Cumberland, and Arkansas
Rivers (NatureServe 2009), and are expected to spread to all the
navigable rivers in the Southeast, as well as tributary reservoirs and
smaller streams (Jenkinson and Todd 1997). Zebra mussels and other
invasive mollusks compete with native mussels for food and space,
attach to native mussels and weaken or kill them, and alter the
suitability of the substrate for native species (Herrig and Shute
2002). Where zebra mussels establish large populations, they are likely
to destroy native mussels and snail populations (Jenkinson and Todd
1997).
The petition alleges that native southeastern mollusks are also
threatened by the invasion of the Asian clam. Asian clams spread
rapidly throughout every major drainage in the South following their
introduction in the 1960s. Asian clams compete with native mussels for
space and food.
The petition asserts that other southeastern taxa, in addition to
fish and mollusks, are also threatened by the spread of invasive
species. Native crayfish are threatened by invasive mussels, which can
attach to their exoskeletons, and by invasive species of crayfish and
fish, which compete with and prey on native crayfish (Schuster 1997).
Nonnative crayfish are commonly introduced via ``bait buckets.''
Several species of nonnative snails have also invaded the Southeast
(Neves et al. 1993). Native amphibians are threatened by invasive fish
and invasive amphibians, which can act as predators, competitors, and
disease vectors (Dodd 1997). Additionally, the petition asserts that
exotic cattle egrets, armadillos, and wild hogs can ``exact a
substantial toll'' on amphibians (Dodd 1997). Fire ants also threaten
amphibians, as they have been known to kill metamorphosing individuals
(Freed and Neitman 1988).
According to the petition, many invasive plant species are wreaking
havoc on aquatic habitats in the Southeast. Species such as
Myriophyllum spicatum (Eurasian watermilfoil), Alternanthera
philoxeroides (alligatorweed), Hydrilla verticillata (hydrilla), and
Eichhornia crassipies (water hyacinth) are thriving in aquatic and
wetland habitats and negatively impacting native species (Folkerts
1997; Buckner et al. 2002). Invasive plants displace native plants,
alter substrate availability for aquatic invertebrates, and interfere
with the food web (Folkerts 1997). Invasive plants threaten several of
the petitioned plants, including Baptisia megacarpa (Apalachicola wild
indigo), Ptilimnium ahlesii (Carolina bishopweed), and Hexastylis
speciosa (Harper's heartleaf).
Outbreaks of invasive and native forest-destroying insects have
weakened and killed trees in riparian areas and reduced nutrient inputs
to aquatic
[[Page 59856]]
systems (Morse et al. 1997). The petitioned Tsuga caroliniana (Carolina
hemlock) is threatened by hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae).
Streamside habitat degradation due to exotic pests also threatens
aquatic insect populations in the Southeast due to altered microhabitat
conditions (Herrig and Shute 2002).
Inherent Vulnerability of Small, Isolated Populations
According to the petition, 224 of the petitioned species now exist
in primarily small, isolated populations, which heightens their risk of
extinction. Small, isolated populations are vulnerable to extirpation
due to limited gene flow, reduced genetic diversity, and inbreeding
depression (Lynch 1996). Population isolation also increases the risk
of extinction from stochastic genetic and environmental events,
including drought, flooding, and toxic spills (FWS 2009). Habitat
modification and cumulative habitat degradation from non-point source
pollution are also major threats for species that exist in isolated
populations. Due to blocked avenues of dispersal or limited dispersal
ability, isolated populations gradually disappear as habitat conditions
deteriorate (FWS 2000).
Synergies and Multiple Causes
The petition alleges that the risk of extinction for the petitioned
species is heightened by synergies between threats as most species face
multiple threats and these threats interact and magnify each other.
Across taxa, interactions among threats place southeastern aquatic
biota at increased risk of extinction. Reptiles are threatened by
habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, pollution, disease and
parasitism, unsustainable use, global climate change, and synergies
between these factors (Gibbons et al. 2000). Freshwater snails are
threatened by the combined effects of habitat loss, pollution, drought,
and invasive species (Lydeard et al. 2004). Likewise, amphibians are
imperiled by multiple, interacting threats. Stress from the effects of
increased UV-b radiation, pollution, and climate change has made
amphibians more vulnerable to the spread of disease (Gendron et al.
2003; Pounds et al. 2006). The interaction between climate change and
compromised immunity due to various stressors threatens both amphibian
populations and entire species (Green and Dodd 2003). Similarly,
threats to freshwater fish are ``many, cumulative and interactive,''
and fish extirpation is nearly always attributable to multiple human
impacts (Warren et al. 1997). Any factor that causes the decline of the
host fishes on which mussels depend for reproduction also threatens the
mussels, which themselves face multiple threats including impoundment,
pollution, and invasive species (Neves et al. 1997). The petition
claims that because of the multifaceted ecological relationships among
species, the extirpation of a species can have effects that cascade
throughout the community, highlighting the need to protect entire
communities simultaneously.
Summary of Threats as Identified in the Petition
Table 2--Threats for the 374 Species as Classified by the Petitioners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor
Scientific name Common name Taxon --------------------------------------------
A B C D E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambystoma barbouri....................... Streamside Salamander............ Amphibian.................... X X X X X
Amphiuma pholeter........................ One-Toed Amphiuma................ Amphibian.................... X X X X X
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis............. Hellbender....................... Amphibian.................... X X X X X
Desmognathus abditus..................... Cumberland Dusky Salamander...... Amphibian.................... X X X X .......
Desmognathus aeneus...................... Seepage Salamander............... Amphibian.................... X X X X X
Eurycea chamberlaini..................... Chamberlain's Dwarf Salamander... Amphibian.................... X X X X X
Eurycea tynerensis....................... Oklahoma Salamander.............. Amphibian.................... X X X X X
Gyrinophilus palleucus................... Tennessee Cave Salamander........ Amphibian.................... X X X X X
Gyrinophilus subterraneus................ West Virginia Spring Salamander.. Amphibian.................... X X X X X
Eurycea wallacei......................... Georgia Blind Salamander......... Amphibian.................... X X X X X
Necturus lewisi.......................... Neuse River Waterdog (salamander) Amphibian.................... X X X X X
Pseudobranchus striatus lustricolus...... Gulf Hammock Dwarf Siren......... Amphibian.................... X X ....... X X
Urspelerpes brucei....................... Patch-nosed Salamander........... Amphibian.................... X X ....... X X
Crangonyx grandimanus.................... Florida Cave Amphipod............ Amphipod..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Crangonyx hobbsi......................... Hobb's Cave Amphipod............. Amphipod..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Stygobromus cooperi...................... Cooper's Cave Amphipod........... Amphipod..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Stygobromus indentatus................... Tidewater Amphipod............... Amphipod..................... X ....... ....... X X
Stygobromus morrisoni.................... Morrison's Cave Amphipod......... Amphipod..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Stygobromus parvus....................... Minute Cave Amphipod............. Amphipod..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Cicindela marginipennis.................. Cobblestone Tiger Beetle......... Beetle....................... X X ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus avernus................ Avernus Cave Beetle.............. Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X X
Pseudanophthalmus cordicollis............ Little Kennedy Cave Beetle....... Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus egberti................ New River Valley Cave Beetle..... Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus hirsutus............... Cumberland Gap Cave Beetle....... Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus hubbardi............... Hubbard's Cave Beetle............ Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus hubrichti.............. Hubricht's Cave Beetle........... Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus intersectus............ Crossroad's Cave Beetle.......... Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus limicola............... Madden's Cave Beetle............. Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus montanus............... Dry Fork Valley Cave Beetle...... Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus pontis................. Natural Bridge Cave Beetle....... Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus potomaca............... South Branch Valley Cave Beetle.. Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus praetermissus.......... Overlooked Cave Beetle........... Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus sanctipauli............ Saint Paul Cave Beetle........... Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus sericus................ Silken Cave Beetle............... Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
[[Page 59857]]
Pseudanophthalmus thomasi................ Thomas's Cave Beetle............. Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Pseudanophthalmus virginicus............. Maiden Spring Cave Beetle........ Beetle....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Ammodrammus maritimus macgillivraii...... MacGillivray's Seaside Sparrow... Bird......................... X ....... X X X
Grus canadensis pratensis................ Florida Sandhill Crane........... Bird......................... X X X X X
Laterallus jamaicensis................... Black Rail....................... Bird......................... X X X X X
Amblyscirtes linda....................... Linda's Roadside-skipper......... Butterfly.................... X ....... ....... ....... X
Euphyes dukesi calhouni.................. Duke's Skipper................... Butterfly.................... X ....... ....... X X
Euphyes pilatka klotsi................... Palatka Skipper.................. Butterfly.................... X ....... ....... X X
Problema bulenta......................... Rare Skipper..................... Butterfly.................... X X ....... X X
Agarodes logani.......................... Logan's Agarodes Caddisfly....... Caddisfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Hydroptila sykorae....................... Sykora's Hydroptila Caddisfly.... Caddisfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Lepidostoma morsei....................... Morse's Little Plain Brown Sedge. Caddisfly.................... X ....... ....... X X
Oecetis parva............................ Little Oecetis Longhorn Caddisfly Caddisfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Oxyethira setosa......................... Setose Cream and Brown Mottled Caddisfly.................... X ....... ....... X X
Microcaddisfly.
Triaenodes tridontus..................... Three-toothed Triaenodes Caddisfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Caddisfly.
Bouchardina robisoni..................... Bayou Bodcau Crayfish............ Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Cambarus cryptodytes..................... Dougherty Plain Cave Crayfish.... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Cambarus obeyensis....................... Obey Crayfish.................... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarellus blacki....................... Cypress Crayfish................. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Cambarellus diminutus.................... Least Crayfish................... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... ....... X
Cambarellus lesliei...................... Angular Dwarf Crayfish........... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Cambarus bouchardi....................... Big South Fork Crayfish.......... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus chasmodactylus.................. New River Crayfish............... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Cambarus chaugaensis..................... Chauga Crayfish.................. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus coosawattae..................... Coosawattae Crayfish............. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus cracens......................... Slenderclaw Crayfish............. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Cambarus cymatilis....................... Conasauga Blue Burrower.......... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Cambarus eeseeohensis.................... Grandfather Mountain Crayfish.... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus elkensis........................ Elk River Crayfish............... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus extraneus....................... Chickamauga Crayfish............. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus fasciatus....................... Etowah Crayfish.................. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus georgiae........................ Little Tennessee Crayfish........ Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus harti........................... Piedmont Blue Burrower........... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus jezerinaci...................... Spiny Scale Crayfish............. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Cambarus jonesi.......................... Alabama Cave Crayfish............ Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus nerterius....................... Greenbrier Cave Crayfish......... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus parrishi........................ Hiwassee Headwater Crayfish...... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus pristinus....................... Pristine Crayfish................ Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Cambarus scotti.......................... Chattooga River Crayfish......... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus speciosus....................... Beautiful Crayfish............... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus spicatus........................ Broad River Spiny Crayfish....... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... ....... X
Cambarus strigosus....................... Lean Crayfish.................... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Cambarus unestami........................ Blackbarred Crayfish............. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Cambarus veteranus....................... Big Sandy Crayfish............... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Cambarus williami........................ Brawleys Fork Crayfish........... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Distocambarus carlsoni................... Mimic Crayfish................... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Distocambarus devexus.................... Broad River Burrowing Crayfish... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Distocambarus youngineri................. Newberry Burrowing Crayfish...... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Fallicambarus burrisi.................... Burrowing Bog Crayfish........... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Fallicambarus danielae................... Speckled Burrowing Crayfish...... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Fallicambarus gilpini.................... Jefferson County Crayfish........ Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Fallicambarus harpi...................... Ouachita Burrowing Crayfish...... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Fallicambarus hortoni.................... Hatchie Burrowing Crayfish....... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Fallicambarus petilicarpus............... Slenderwrist Burrowing Crayfish.. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Fallicambarus strawni.................... Saline Burrowing Crayfish........ Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Hobbseus cristatus....................... Crested Riverlet Crayfish........ Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Hobbseus orconectoides................... Oktibbeha Riverlet Crayfish...... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Hobbseus petilus......................... Tombigbee Riverlet Crayfish...... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Hobbseus yalobushensis................... Yalobusha Riverlet Crayfish...... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Orconectes blacki........................ Calcasieu Crayfish............... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Orconectes eupunctus..................... Coldwater Crayfish............... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Orconectes hartfieldi.................... Yazoo Crayfish................... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Orconectes incomptus..................... Tennessee Cave Crayfish.......... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Orconectes jonesi........................ Sucarnoochee River Crayfish...... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Orconectes maletae....................... Kisatchie Painted Crayfish....... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Orconectes marchandi..................... Mammoth Spring Crayfish.......... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Orconectes packardi...................... Appalachian Cave Crayfish........ Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
[[Page 59858]]
Orconectes sheltae....................... Shelta Cave Crayfish............. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Orconectes virginiensis.................. Chowanoke Crayfish............... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... ....... X
Orconectes wrighti....................... Hardin Crayfish.................. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus acherontis................... Orlando Cave Crayfish............ Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus apalachicolae................ Coastal Flatwoods Crayfish....... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus attiguus..................... Silver Glen Springs Crayfish..... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Procambarus barbiger..................... Jackson Prairie Crayfish......... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Procambarus cometes...................... Mississippi Flatwoods Crayfish... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Procambarus delicatus.................... Bigcheek Cave Crayfish........... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus econfinae.................... Panama City Crayfish............. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Procambarus erythrops.................... Santa Fe Cave Crayfish........... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus fitzpatricki................. Spinytail Crayfish............... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus franzi....................... Orange Lake Cave Crayfish........ Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Procambarus horsti....................... Big Blue Springs Cave Crayfish... Crayfish..................... X X ....... X .......
Procambarus lagniappe.................... Lagniappe Crayfish............... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Procambarus leitheuseri.................. Coastal Lowland Cave Crayfish.... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus lucifugus.................... Florida Cave Crayfish............ Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Procambarus lucifugus alachua............ Alachua Light Fleeing Cave Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Crayfish.
Procambarus lucifugus lucifugus.......... Florida Cave Crayfish............ Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Procambarus lylei........................ Shutispear Crayfish.............. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus milleri...................... Miami Cave Crayfish.............. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus morrisi...................... Putnam County Cave Crayfish...... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus orcinus...................... Woodville Karst Cave Crayfish.... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus pallidus..................... Pallid Cave Crayfish............. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Procambarus pictus....................... Black Creek Crayfish............. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus pogum........................ Bearded Red Crayfish............. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus regalis...................... Regal Burrowing Crayfish......... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Procambarus reimeri...................... Irons Fork Burrowing Crayfish.... Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X X
Troglocambarus maclanei.................. Spider Cave Crayfish............. Crayfish..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Cordulegaster sayi....................... Say's Spiketail.................. Dragonfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Gomphus consanguis....................... Cherokee Clubtail................ Dragonfly.................... X ....... ....... X X
Gomphus sandrius......................... Tennessee Clubtail............... Dragonfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Gomphus septima.......................... Septima's Clubtail............... Dragonfly.................... X X ....... X X
Gomphus westfalli........................ Westfall's Clubtail.............. Dragonfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Libellula jesseana....................... Purple Skimmer................... Dragonfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Macromia margarita....................... Mountain River Cruiser........... Dragonfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Ophiogomphus australis................... Southern Snaketail............... Dragonfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Ophiogomphus edmundo..................... Edmund's Snaketail............... Dragonfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Ophiogomphus incurvatus.................. Appalachian Snaketail............ Dragonfly.................... X X ....... X X
Somatochlora calverti.................... Calvert's Emerald................ Dragonfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Somatochlora margarita................... Texas Emerald.................... Dragonfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Somatochlora ozarkensis.................. Ozark Emerald.................... Dragonfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Stylurus potulentus...................... Yellow-sided Clubtail............ Dragonfly.................... X ....... ....... X .......
Amblyopsis spelaea....................... Northern cavefish................ Fish......................... X X ....... X X
Cyprinella callitaenia................... Bluestripe shiner................ Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Cyprinella xaenura....................... Altamaha Shiner.................. Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Elassoma boehlkei........................ Carolina Pygmy Sunfish........... Fish......................... X X X X X
Erimystax harryi......................... Ozark chub....................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Etheostoma bellator...................... Warrior Darter................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Etheostoma brevirostrum.................. Holiday Darter................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Etheostoma cinereum...................... Ashy Darter...................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Etheostoma forbesi....................... Barrens Darter................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Etheostoma microlepidum.................. Smallscale Darter................ Fish......................... X ....... ....... X .......
Etheostoma osburni....................... Candy Darter..................... Fish......................... X ....... X X X
Etheostoma pallididorsum................. Paleback Darter.................. Fish......................... X ....... X X X
Etheostoma pseudovulatum................. Egg-mimic Darter................. Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Etheostoma striatulum.................... Striated Darter.................. Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Etheostoma tecumsehi..................... Shawnee Darter................... Fish......................... X ....... X X X
Etheostoma tippecanoe.................... Tippecanoe Darter................ Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Etheostoma trisella...................... Trispot Darter................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Etheostoma tuscumbia..................... Tuscumbia Darter................. Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Fundulus julisia......................... Barrens Topminnow................ Fish......................... X ....... X X .......
Moxostoma robustum....................... Robust Redhorse.................. Fish......................... X X X X X
Notropis ariommus........................ Popeye Shiner.................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X .......
Notropis ozarcanus....................... Ozark Shiner..................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Notropis perpallidus..................... Peppered Shiner.................. Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Notropis suttkusi........................ Rocky Shiner..................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Noturus fasciatus........................ Saddled Madtom................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Noturus furiosus......................... Carolina Madtom.................. Fish......................... X ....... X X X
[[Page 59859]]
Noturus gilberti......................... Orangefin Madtom................. Fish......................... X X ....... X X
Noturus gladiator........................ Piebald Madtom................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Noturus lachneri......................... Ouachita Madtom.................. Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Noturus munitus.......................... Frecklebelly Madtom.............. Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Noturus taylori.......................... Caddo Madtom..................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Percina bimaculata....................... Chesapeake Logperch.............. Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Percina brevicauda....................... Coal Darter...................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Percina crypta........................... Halloween Darter................. Fish......................... X ....... ....... X .......
Percina cymatotaenia..................... Bluestripe Darter................ Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Percina kusha............................ Bridled Darter................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Percina macrocephala..................... Longhead Darter.................. Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Percina nasuta........................... Longnose Darter.................. Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Percina sipsi............................ Bankhead Darter.................. Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Percina williamsi........................ Sickle Darter.................... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Pteronotropis euryzonus.................. Broadstripe Shiner............... Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Pteronotropis hubbsi..................... Bluehead Shiner.................. Fish......................... X X X X X
Thoburnia atripinnis..................... Blackfin Sucker.................. Fish......................... X ....... ....... X X
Remenus kirchneri........................ Blueridge Springfly.............. Fly.......................... X ....... ....... X .......
Caecidotea cannula....................... None............................. Isopod....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Lirceus culveri.......................... Rye Cove Isopod.................. Isopod....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Blarina carolinensis shermani............ Sherman's Short-tailed Shrew..... Mammal....................... X ....... X X .......
Oryzomys palustris pop. 1................ Pine Island Oryzomys or Marsh Mammal....................... X ....... ....... X X
Rice Rat.
Oryzomys palustris pop.2................. Sanibel Island Oryzomys or Marsh Mammal....................... X ....... ....... X X
Rice Rat.
Sigmodon hispidus insulicola............. Insular Cotton Rat............... Mammal....................... X ....... ....... X X
Automeris louisiana...................... Louisiana Eyed Silkmoth.......... Moth......................... X ....... ....... X X
Alasmidonta arcula....................... Altamaha Arcmussel............... Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Alasmidonta triangulata.................. Southern Elktoe.................. Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Alasmidonta varicosa..................... Brook Floater.................... Mussel....................... X X ....... X X
Anodonta heardi.......................... Apalachicola Floater............. Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Anodontoides radiatus.................... Rayed Creekshell................. Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Cyprogenia aberti........................ Western Fanshell................. Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Elliptio ahenea.......................... Southern Lance................... Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Elliptio arca............................ Alabama Spike.................... Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Elliptio arctata......................... Delicate Spike................... Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Elliptio fraterna........................ Brother Spike.................... Mussel....................... X X ....... X X
Elliptio lanceolata...................... Yellow Lance..................... Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Elliptio monroensis...................... St. John's Elephant Ear.......... Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Elliptio purpurella...................... Inflated Spike................... Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Fusconaia masoni......................... Atlantic Pigtoe.................. Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Fusconaia subrotunda..................... Longsolid........................ Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Lampsilis fullerkati..................... Waccamaw Fatmucket............... Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Lasmigona holstonia...................... Tennessee Heelsplitter........... Mussel....................... X ....... X X X
Lasmigona subviridis..................... Green Floater.................... Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Medionidus conradicus.................... Cumberland Moccasinshell......... Mussel....................... X ....... X X X
Medionidus walkeri....................... Suwannee Moccasinshell........... Mussel....................... X X ....... X X
Obovaria subrotunda...................... Round Hickorynut................. Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Obovaria unicolor........................ Alabama Hickorynut............... Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Pleurobema athearni...................... Canoe Creek Pigtoe............... Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Pleurobema oviforme...................... Tennessee Clubshell.............. Mussel....................... X X X X X
Pleurobema rubellum...................... Warrior Pigtoe................... Mussel....................... X X ....... X X
Pleurobema rubrum........................ Pyramid Pigtoe................... Mussel....................... X X ....... X X
Pleuronaia barnesiana.................... Tennessee Pigtoe................. Mussel....................... X ....... X X X
Pyganodon gibbosa........................ Inflated Floater................. Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Quadrula asperata archeri................ Tallapoosa Orb................... Mussel....................... X ....... ....... ....... .......
Simpsonaias ambigua...................... Salamander Mussel................ Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Toxolasma lividus........................ Purple Lilliput.................. Mussel....................... X ....... X X X
Toxolasma pullus......................... Savannah Lilliput................ Mussel....................... X ....... X X X
Villosa nebulosa......................... Alabama Rainbow.................. Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Villosa ortmanni......................... Kentucky Creekshell.............. Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X .......
Villosa umbrans.......................... Coosa Creekshell................. Mussel....................... X ....... ....... X X
Fissidens appalachensis.................. Appalachian Fissidens Moss....... Non-Vascular Plant........... X ....... ....... X X
Fissidens hallii......................... Hall's Pocket Moss............... Non-Vascular Plant........... X ....... ....... X X
Megaceros aenigmaticus................... Hornwort......................... Non-Vascular Plant........... X ....... ....... X .......
Phaeophyscia leana....................... Lea's Bog Lichen................. Non-Vascular Plant........... X ....... ....... X X
Plagiochila caduciloba................... Gorge Leafy Liverwort............ Non-Vascular Plant........... X ....... ....... X .......
Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii......... Sharp's Leafy Liverwort.......... Non-Vascular Plant........... X ....... ....... X .......
Clonophis kirtlandii..................... Kirtland's Snake................. Reptile...................... X X X X X
Deirochelys reticularia miaria........... Western Chicken Turtle........... Reptile...................... X X ....... X X
[[Page 59860]]
Eumeces egregius egregius................ Florida Keys Mole Skink.......... Reptile...................... X X ....... X X
Graptemys barbouri....................... Barbour's Map Turtle............. Reptile...................... X X X X .......
Graptemys ernsti......................... Escambia Map Turtle.............. Reptile...................... X X X X X
Graptemys gibbonsi....................... Pascagoula Map Turtle............ Reptile...................... X X X X X
Graptemys nigrinoda...................... Black-knobbed Map Turtle......... Reptile...................... X X ....... X X
Graptemys pulchra........................ Alabama Map Turtle............... Reptile...................... X X ....... X X
Kinosternon baurii pop. 1................ Striped Mud Turtle--Lower FL Keys Reptile...................... X X ....... X X
Pseudemys nelsoni pop. 1................. Florida Red-bellied Turtle--FL Reptile...................... X X X X .......
Panhandle.
Pseudemys rubriventris................... Northern Red-bellied Cooter...... Reptile...................... X X X X X
Thamnophis sauritus pop.1................ Eastern Ribbonsnake--Lower FL Reptile...................... X ....... ....... X .......
Keys.
Antrorbis breweri........................ Manitou Cavesnail................ Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Aphaostracon asthenes.................... Blue Spring Hydrobe Snail........ Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Aphaostracon chalarogyrus................ Freemouth Hydrobe Snail.......... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X .......
Aphaostracon monas....................... Wekiwa Hydrobe Snail............. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X .......
Aphaostracon pycnus...................... Dense Hydrobe Snail.............. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Aphaostracon theiocrenetum............... Clifton Spring Hydrobe Snail..... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia acuta............................. Acute Elimia..................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia alabamensis....................... Mud Elimia....................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia ampla............................. Ample Elimia..................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia annettae.......................... Lilyshoals Elimia................ Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia arachnoidea....................... Spider Elimia.................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia bellacrenata...................... Princess Elimia.................. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia bellula........................... Walnut Elimia.................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X .......
Elimia chiltonensis...................... Prune Elimia..................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia cochliaris........................ Cockle Elimia.................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia cylindracea....................... Cylinder Elimia.................. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia lachryma.......................... Nodulose Coosa River Snail....... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia nassula........................... Round-Rib Elimia................. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia olivula........................... Caper Elimia..................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia perstriata........................ Engraved Elimia.................. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia showalteri........................ Compact Elimia................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia teres............................. Elegant Elimia................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Elimia vanuxemiana....................... Cobble Elimia.................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Floridobia mica.......................... Ichetucknee Siltsnail............ Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Floridobia monroensis.................... Enterprise Siltsnail............. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X .......
Floridobia parva......................... Pygmy Siltsnail.................. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X .......
Floridobia ponderosa..................... Ponderosa Siltsnail.............. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Floridobia wekiwae....................... Wekiwa Siltsnail................. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X .......
Leptoxis arkansasensis................... Arkansas Mudalia................. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Leptoxis picta........................... Spotted Rocksnail................ Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Leptoxis virgata......................... Smooth Mudalia................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Lithasia curta........................... Knobby Rocksnail................. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Lithasia duttoniana...................... Helmet Rocksnail................. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X .......
Lo fluvialis............................. Spiny Riversnail................. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Marstonia agarhecta...................... Ocmulgee Marstonia............... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X .......
Marstonia castor......................... Beaverpond Marstonia............. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Marstonia ozarkensis..................... Ozark Pyrg....................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X .......
Planorbella magnifica.................... Magnificent Ram's-horn........... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Pleurocera corpulenta.................... Corpulent Hornsnail.............. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Pleurocera curta......................... Shortspire Hornsnail............. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X .......
Pleurocera pyrenella..................... Skirted Hornsnail................ Snail........................ X ....... ....... X .......
Rhodacme elatior......................... Domed Ancylid.................... Snail........................ X ....... ....... X X
Somatogyrus alcoviensis.................. Reverse Pepplesnail.............. Snail........................ X ....... ....... X .......
Acroneuria kosztarabi.................... Virginia Stone................... Stonefly..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Allocapnia brooksi....................... Sevier Snowfly................... Stonefly..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Allocapnia fumosa........................ Smokies Snowfly.................. Stonefly..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Allocapnia cunninghami................... Karst Snowfly.................... Stonefly..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Amphinemura mockfordi.................... Tennessee Forestfly.............. Stonefly..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Leuctra szczytkoi........................ Louisiana Needlefly.............. Stonefly..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Megaleuctra williamsae................... Smokies Needlefly................ Stonefly..................... X ....... ....... X X
Tallaperla lobata........................ Lobed Roachfly................... Stonefly..................... X ....... ....... X .......
Aeschynomene pratensis................... Meadow Joint-vetch............... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Alnus maritima........................... Seaside Alder.................... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana......... Georgia Leadplant (GA Indigo Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Bush).
Arnoglossum diversifolium................ Variable-leaved Indian-Plantain.. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Balduina atropurpurea.................... Purple Balduina (Purpledisk Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
honeycombhead).
[[Page 59861]]
Baptisia megacarpa....................... Apalachicola Wild Indigo......... Vascular Plant............... X X ....... X X
Bartonia texana.......................... Texas Screwstem.................. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Boltonia montana......................... Doll's-Daisy..................... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Calamovilfa arcuata...................... Rivergrass....................... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Carex brysonii........................... Bryson's Sedge................... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Carex impressinervia..................... Impressed-nerved Sedge........... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Coreopsis integrifolia................... Ciliate-leaf Tickseed............ Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Croton elliottii......................... Elliott's Croton................. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Elytraria caroliniensis var. angustifolia Narrowleaf Carolina Scalystem.... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Encyclia cochleata var. triandra......... Clam-shell Orchid................ Vascular Plant............... ....... X ....... X .......
Epidendrum strobiliferum................. Big Cypress Epidendrum........... Vascular Plant............... X X ....... X X
Eriocaulon koernickianum................. Small-headed Pipewort............ Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Eriocaulon nigrobracteatum............... Black-bracket Pipewort........... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Eupatorium paludicola.................... A Thoroughwort................... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Eurybia saxicastellii.................... Rockcastle Wood-Aster............ Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Fimbristylis perpusilla.................. Harper's Fimbristylis............ Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Forestiera godfreyi...................... Godfry's Privet.................. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Hartwrightia floridan.................... Hartwrightia..................... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Helianthus occidentalis ssp. plantagineus Shinner's Sunflower.............. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Hexastylis speciosa...................... Harper's Heartleaf............... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Hymenocallis henryae..................... Henry's Spider-lily.............. Vascular Plant............... X X ....... X .......
Hypericum edisonianum.................... Edison's Ascyrum................. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Hypericum lissophloeus................... Smooth-barked St. John's-wort.... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Illicium parviflorum..................... Yellow Anisetree................. Vascular Plant............... X X ....... X .......
Isoetes hyemalis......................... Winter or Evergreen Quillwort.... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Isoetes microvela........................ Thin-wall Quillwort.............. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Lilium iridollae......................... Panhandle Lily................... Vascular Plant............... X X X X .......
Lindera subcoriacea...................... Bog Spicebush.................... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Linum westii............................. West's Flax...................... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Lobelia boykinii......................... Boykin's Lobelia................. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Ludwigia brevipes........................ Long Beach Seedbox............... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Ludwigia spathulata...................... Spathulate Seedbox............... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Luwigia ravenii.......................... Raven's Seedbox.................. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Lythrum curtissii........................ Curtis's Loosestrife............. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Lythrum flagellare....................... Lowland Loosestrife.............. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Macbridea caroliniana.................... Carolina Birds-in-a-nest......... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Marshallia grandiflora................... Large-flowered Barbara's-buttons. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Minuartia godfreyi....................... Godfry's Stitchwort.............. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Najas filifolia.......................... Narrowleaf Naiad................. Vascular Plant............... X ....... X X .......
Nuphar lutea ssp. sagittifolia........... Cape Fear Spatterdock or Yellow Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Pond Lily.
Nuphar lutea ssp. ulvacea................ West Florida Cow-lily............ Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Nyssa ursina............................. Bear Tupelo or Dwarf Blackgum.... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Oncidium undulatum....................... Cape Sable Orchid................ Vascular Plant............... ....... X ....... X .......
Physostegia correllii.................... Correll's False Dragonhead....... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Potamogeton floridanus................... Florida Pondweed................. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Potamogeton tennesseensis................ Tennessee Pondweed............... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Ptilimnium ahlesii....................... Carolina Bishopweed.............. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Rhexia parviflora........................ Small-flower Meadow-beauty....... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Rhexia salicifolia....................... Panhandle Meadow-beauty.......... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Rhynochospora crinipes................... Hairy-peduncled Beakbush......... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Rhynchospora thornei..................... Thorne's Beakbush................ Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Rudbeckia auriculata..................... Eared Coneflower................. Vascular Plant............... X ....... X X X
Rudbeckia heliopsidis.................... Sun-facing Coneflower............ Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Salix floridana.......................... Florida Willow................... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Sarracenia purpurea var. montana......... Mountain purple pitcherplant..... Vascular Plant............... X X ....... X .......
Sarracenia rubra ssp. gulfensis.......... Gulf Sweet Pitcherplant.......... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Sarracenia rubra ssp. wherryi............ Wherry's Sweet Pitcherplant...... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Schoenoplectus hallii.................... Hall's Bulrush................... Vascular Plant............... X ....... X X X
Scutellaria ocmulgee..................... Ocmulgee Skullcap................ Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Sideroxylon thornei...................... Swamp Buckhorn or GA Bully....... Vascular Plant............... X ....... X X .......
Solidago arenicola....................... Southern Racemose Goldenrod...... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Sporobolus teretifolius.................. Wire-leaved Dropseed............. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Stellaria fontinalis..................... Water Stitchwort................. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Symphyotrichum puniceum var. scabricaule. Rough-stemmed Aster.............. Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
Thalictrum debile........................ Southern Meadowrue............... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Trillium texanum......................... Texas Trillium................... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
[[Page 59862]]
Tsuga caroliniana........................ Carolina Hemlock................. Vascular Plant............... X ....... X X .......
Vicia ocalensis.......................... Ocala Vetch...................... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Waldsteinia lobata....................... Lobed Barren-strawberry.......... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X X
Xyris longisepala........................ Kral's Yellow-eyed Grass......... Vascular Plant............... X ....... ....... X .......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor A: Present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factor B: Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
Factor C: Disease or predation.
Factor D: Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
Factor E: Other natural or manmade factors.
Evaluation of the Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
We reviewed and evaluated 374 of 404 species in the petition, as
well as the additional information contained in the second petition for
the Carolina hemlock and the supplemental information provided for the
Panama City crayfish. Due to the large number of species reviewed, we
were only able to conduct cursory reviews of the information in our
files and the literature cited in the petition. For many of the
narrowly endemic species included in the 374 species, we had no
additional information in our files and relied solely on the
information provided in the petition and provided through NatureServe.
Finding
On the basis of our evaluation under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act,
we determine that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing 374 species (listed in Table 2) as
endangered or threatened under the Act may be warranted. This finding
is based on information provided under Factors A, B, C, D, and E.
Because we have found that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted, we are initiating
status reviews to determine whether listing these species under the Act
is warranted.
In addition, we find that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing 18 species
that are current candidate species or the subjects of proposed rules to
list may be warranted. The 18 species (listed with details in the
Petition History section) are sicklefin redhorse, laurel dace,
spectaclecase, narrow pigtoe, round ebonyshell, southern sandshell,
sheepnose, fuzzy pigtoe, southern kidneyshell, rabbitsfoot, tapered
pigtoe, Choctaw bean, rayed bean, black mudalia, Coleman cave beetle,
Black Warrior waterdog, Yadkin River goldenrod, and the snuffbox. As a
warranted determination for listing has already been made for these
species, we will not be initiating status reviews for these species at
this time. Further information on the assessments for these 18 species
can be found at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough
status review of the species, which is conducted following a
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a
warranted finding.
We previously determined that emergency listing of any of the 404
petitioned species is not warranted. However, if at any time we
determine that emergency listing of any of the species is warranted, we
will initiate an emergency listing at that time.
The petitioners requested that critical habitat be designated
concurrent with listing under the Act. If we determine in our 12-month
finding, following the status review of the species, that listing is
warranted, we will address the designation of critical habitat in the
subsequent proposed rule.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Southeast
Ecological Services Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Southeast Region Ecological Services Offices.
Authority: The authority for this action is Section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Dated: September 12, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-24633 Filed 9-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P