[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59836-59862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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