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



[[Page 62259]]

Vol. 76

Thursday,

No. 194

October 6, 2011

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

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

[[Page 62260]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

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

Petition History

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

[[Page 62261]]

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

Previous Federal Actions

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

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

Species Information

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

[[Page 62262]]

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

[[Page 62263]]

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

[[Page 62264]]

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

[[Page 62265]]

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

[[Page 62266]]

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

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

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

Sarah's Hydroptila Caddisfly (Hydroptila sarahae)

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

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

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

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

[[Page 62267]]

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

Factor C. Disease or Predation

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

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

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

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

Rogue Creek Hydroptila Caddisfly (Hydroptila okaloosa)

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

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

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

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

Factor C. Disease or Predation

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

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

[[Page 62268]]

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

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

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

Florida Brown Checkered Summer Sedge (Polycentropus floridensis)

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

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

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

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

Factor C. Disease or Predation

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

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that no existing regulatory mechanisms protect 
this species, and despite its stability on EAFB, that issues of 
national security are prioritized over species protection.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We have no information in our files that issues of national 
security are negatively affecting the species or will do so in the 
foreseeable future. In addition, water quality on EAFB is protected in 
part through an approved INRMP (SAIC 2010, pp. 7-55 through 7-60). The 
INRMP and Federal and State water quality laws and regulations are 
protective of water quality and the stream habitats where this species 
occurs. EAFB's overall ecosystem management benefits the species. All 
mission activities are required to avoid disturbing wetlands, including 
the creeks inhabited by this species. EAFB is also subject to the 
Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 and State water quality regulations. 
The protections in place through the INRMP, Clean Water Act, and State 
regulations appear to be adequately protecting the species from poor 
water quality. Therefore, we find that the petition and information 
readily available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms may present a threat to the Florida brown 
checkered summer sedge such that the petitioned action may be 
warranted.

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

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

Ouachita Creekshell (Villosa arkansasensis)

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition (p. 1125) asserts that the species is threatened by 
habitat degradation and fragmentation in the Glover River drainage 
(Vaughan 2003) due to gravel mining, by proposed reservoirs (Galbraith 
et al. 2008), by siltation from forestry and agricultural activities, 
and from second home development (Spooner and Vaughan 2007); and from 
``pollution from municipal and industrial point sources, by recreation, 
development, nutrient loading, confined animal feeding operations, 
grazing, sedimentation, and road construction'' (Arkansas Game and Fish 
Commission 2005). The petition fails to identify any specific details 
showing these potential threats actually affect the Ouachita 
creekshell, or identify the significance of these threats to the status 
of the Ouachita creekshell.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    In 2007, the Service concluded a status assessment of the Ouachita 
creekshell (Davidson 2007), in which

[[Page 62269]]

we assessed the status and threats based on the five listing factors. 
We concluded that an absence of comprehensive mussel surveys within the 
Ouachita creekshell historic range has resulted in difficulty assessing 
long term population trends (Davidson 2007, p. 30). Limited information 
is available on the species prior to the 1980s and prior to most 
anthropogenic (human-caused) impacts that may have affected populations 
when the area was industrialized and urbanized.
    We further concluded in the assessment that construction of 12 
major dams and impoundments probably contributed to the historic 
decline of the Ouachita creekshell as the species does not occur in 
reservoirs lacking riverine characteristics and is unable to 
successfully reproduce and recruit under reservoir or tailwater 
conditions (Davidson 2007, pp. 31-32). We have no information in our 
files indicating that any new reservoirs are proposed or that the 
existing reservoirs currently threaten the Ouachita creekshell.
    Similarly, the demise of the mussel population in the lower Poteau 
River system has been attributed, at least in part, to sedimentation 
and farming chemicals (Davidson 2007, pp. 32-33). In the early 1990's 
the upper Mountain Fork and Glover Rivers may have been impaired by 
clearcutting and conversion of surrounding lands to pasture and 
confined animal feeding operations (R. Standage, U.S. Forest Service, 
pers. comm. 2007). DeClerk et al. (2006) assessed the threats and 
stressors to the upper Saline River (Ouachita River basin) headwaters 
and concluded that stressors are likely to be localized and moderately 
degrade aquatic biota and habitat over a portion of the watershed if 
conditions remain unchanged over the next 10 years. Lastly, we 
concluded in the assessment that the impacts of mining should be 
localized and have a minimum effect on the species rangewide (Davidson 
2007, p. 33).
    Sedimentation, including siltation, resulting from such activities 
as grazing, home development, and road construction is a pervasive 
problem across the United States, including the range of the Ouachita 
creekshell. As the Ouachita creekshell relies on visual-feeding host 
fishes for reproduction, clear silt-free water is essential for 
successful recruitment. However, use of best management practices, 
which in some cases are mandatory and others voluntary, significantly 
reduces sediment and erosion from construction and development, timber, 
and agricultural practices. Additionally, approximately 85 percent of 
the Ouachita River basin upstream of Lake Ouachita is within Ouachita 
National Forest. Therefore, populations of this species are 
substantially protected from habitat destruction and alteration from 
sedimentation.
    The Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife program (PFW) has 
identified priority watersheds in the Ouachita Mountains for habitat 
restoration. The PFW has funded one project to enhance riparian habitat 
on the Middle Fork Saline River. Other PFW projects are scattered 
throughout priority watersheds (M. Tobin, USFWS, pers. Comm., 2006). 
Additionally, resource managers are teaming together to develop 
strategies to restore mussel populations in various watersheds. These 
efforts have been largely focused on the Upper Saline River watershed 
(Ouachita River basin) in the Ouachita creekshell range. These 
strategies have emphasized actions to aid in the restoration of mussel 
populations.
    In summary, the threats alleged in the Petition are largely 
historical and not currently acting on the species or are not a threat 
of sufficient magnitude such that they affect the species continued 
existence.

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

    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not assert it is a threat. Information in our files (Davidson 
2007, p. 36) indicates this species has never been valuable in the 
commercial pearl button or cultured pearl industry. Similarly, there is 
no other information in our files that would suggest overutilization 
for recreational, scientific or education purposes is a threat. 
Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily available 
in our files do not provide substantial scientific or commercial 
information to indicate that overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may present a threat 
to the Ouachita creekshell such that the petitioned action may be 
warranted.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not assert it is a threat. Information in our files indicates that 
there are several natural predators of mussels, including the muskrat, 
raccoon, mink, otter, hogs, turtles and aquatic birds. However, threats 
from these species are not currently deemed significant (Davidson 2007, 
p. 37). Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily 
available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that disease or predation may 
present a threat to the Ouachita creekshell such that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition (p. 1126) states, ``There are no existing regulatory 
mechanisms that protect the Ouachita Creekshell.'' However, the 
petition fails to provide any substantial information detailing the 
significance of this potential threat or how it may be acting on the 
species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    In contrast to the above statement in the petition, there are 
several regulatory mechanisms in place to protect the Ouachita 
creekshell. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission prohibits taking of 
Ouachita creekshell without a State collecting permit (Davidson 2007). 
The Clean Water Act prohibits water quality degradation, and 
administration of this authority has improved over the last several 
years in AR and OK (Davidson 2007). Hydropower Dams are regulated by 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Federal Power 
Act (FPA). The FPA provides for cooperation between FERC and other 
Federal and State agencies, including resource agencies, in licensing 
and relicensing power projects, including the authority to alter flow 
regimes such that they might reduce or avoid adverse effects to mussels 
downstream.
    Many Ouachita creekshell extant and historical populations occur on 
public lands (e.g., Ouachita National Forest, State parks, and wildlife 
management areas). Approximately 85 percent of the Ouachita River basin 
upstream of Lake Ouachita is within Ouachita National Forest. 
Accordingly, populations of this species are substantially protected 
from habitat destruction and alteration. Therefore, we find that the 
petition and information readily available in our files do not provide 
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that 
disease or predation may present a threat to the Ouachita creekshell 
such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition (p. 1126), citing Harris et al. (1997) states that 
zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion is a

[[Page 62270]]

threat to the native mussels of the Arkansas and White Rivers. However, 
it does not provide any specific information on the significance of the 
threat or extent of the invasion into Ouachita creekshell habitat.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Davidson (2007, pp. 38-39) evaluated the existing threats to the 
Ouachita creekshell using the five listing factors and, while he 
discusses the exotic Asian clam as firmly entrenched in the Ouachita 
creekshell range, he also finds that the Asian clam may not cause 
native mussels in dense beds to decline when it invades their habitat. 
Davidson (2007) does not mention the zebra mussel as a possible threat. 
As noted previously, phylogenetic analysis suggests that Ouachita 
creekshell (Villosa arkansasensis) may be the same species as the 
southern hickorynut mussel, considerably increasing the range and 
population numbers of the Ouachita creekshell. Therefore, we find that 
the petition and information readily available in our files do not 
provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate 
that other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued 
existence may present a threat to the Ouachita creekshell such that the 
petitioned action may be warranted.

Crystal darter (Crystallaria asprella)

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition (p. 286), citing numerous sources, states that habitat 
destruction is a primary threat to the crystal darter. On page 286 the 
Petition states, ``The crystal darter now occurs as declining, 
fragmented populations that are highly vulnerable to extirpation from 
habitat loss and degradation.'' NatureServe (2008) reports that this 
fish is threatened by ``siltation and other forms of pollution from 
urbanization, strip-mining, logging, natural gas exploration, and 
improper agricultural practices, as well as stream alteration projects, 
such as damming, dredging, and channelization.'' Dredging for 
navigation is believed to be a major threat in the upper Mississippi 
River system.
    Reasons outlined for habitat loss include siltation and other 
water-quality concerns in streams and rivers (Boschung and Mayden 2004, 
NatureServe 2008, Jelks et al. 2008, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 
(AGFC) 2005 as cited in the Petition, pp. 285-286), dams and 
impoundments (Boschung & Mayden 2004, NatureServe 2008, and AGFC 2005, 
as cited in the Petition, p. 286), and mountaintop removal coal mining 
(Boschung & Mayden 2004, Wood 2009, and Wood and Raley 2000 as 
referenced in the Petition, p. 286).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    In the Service's crystal darter status assessment (2009), we 
acknowledge that extensive human disturbance over the past 100 years 
has contributed to the extirpation of the crystal darter from portions 
of its former range including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, 
Kentucky, and Iowa (Etnier and Starnes 1993 as reported in FWS 2009). 
It has long been recognized that siltation alters aquatic habitats by 
reducing light penetration, changing heat radiation, covering the 
stream bottom, and retaining organic material and other debris (Ellis 
1936). This translates into the disruption of reproductive behavior and 
alteration of food resources utilized by stream fish communities (Ellis 
1936).
    The crystal darter was broadly distributed in tributaries of the 
Ohio River until high silt loading and the subsequent smothering of 
sandy substrates occurred (Trautman 1981). Impoundment and 
channelization were thought to have caused the extirpation of crystal 
darter populations from the Tombigbee River, a part of the Mobile River 
system (Stewart 1992). According to Etnier and Starnes (1993), as 
reported in FWS (2009), impoundments at Lake Cumberland, Cordell Hull, 
and Dale Hollow reservoirs in Tennessee have caused the apparent 
extirpation of the crystal darter by altering big-river habitat in the 
region. Schmidt (1995) lists dredging for commercial navigation as the 
greatest threat to crystal darter populations in the Mississippi River. 
On the other hand, Schmidt (1995) also notes that collections made in a 
pool designated as a dredge disposal site may provide suitable 
substrates to accommodate the crystal darter's burying behavior. The 
positive and negative impacts have yet to be fully sorted out. Hatch 
(1998) suggests that the rarity of crystal darters in the Upper 
Mississippi River could be a result of the velocity reduction and 
particle deposition associated with navigation controls. However, 
Schmidt (1995) notes that crystal darters have been repeatedly detected 
in association with wing dam structures, which are abundant throughout 
the Mississippi River system.
    While habitat modification and destruction have occurred in the 
past, the Petition fails to present new substantial information that 
this factor continues to affect the crystal darter or would in the 
future. Similarly, while dredging, dams, stripmining, and mountaintop 
mining represent generalized threats to the species as stated in the 
Petition as well as in our own status assessment (2009), neither the 
Petition nor information in our files present substantial information 
detailing the significance of these threats to the species. Therefore, 
we find that the petition and information readily available in our 
files do not provide substantial scientific or commercial information 
to indicate that the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of the species' habitat or range may present a threat to 
the crystal darter such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not assert it is a threat.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Although the crystal darter has no commercial value, live specimens 
may be collected for the aquarium trade (Walsh et al. 2003). However, 
Schmidt (2003) asserted that current inefficiencies in collection 
techniques preclude overutilization from becoming a major threat to 
crystal darter populations. Inadvertent collection of crystal darters 
while sampling for other fish species could occur, but is unlikely 
considering the low encounter rate for this species. Therefore, we find 
that the petition and information readily available in our files do not 
provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate 
that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes may present a threat to the crystal darter such 
that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not assert it is a threat.

[[Page 62271]]

Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) is an infectious disease of fish 
that was diagnosed in 2005 in fish in the Great Lakes, and was 
confirmed as the cause of fish kills in Lakes Huron, St. Clair, Erie, 
and Ontario and the St. Lawrence River in 2005 and 2006. VHS was 
detected for the first time in 2007 in fish from Wisconsin waters, and 
fish biologists believe the virus may soon be in fish from the upper 
Mississippi River and their tributaries or may already be present.
    The Great Lakes strain of VHS is genetically different than the 
strains from Europe and the Pacific Northwest, in that it seems to 
affect a wider range of freshwater species over a broader range of 
water temperatures. Some percid (perch) species are known to be 
susceptible to VHS; however, it has been noted only in the sport fish, 
and no darters have been reported with VHS so far.
    Natural predation by piscivorous fish and wildlife likely occurs 
(Page 1983). Newly introduced species may act as predators and/or 
competitors of native fish, including the varieties of nonnative, 
invasive Asian carp now occurring and reproducing in the Mississippi 
River and some of its tributaries, including the grass carp, silver 
carp, bighead carp, and black carp. Asian carp are becoming abundant 
and persistent residents of the lower reaches of the Upper Mississippi 
River System (UMRS; Koel et al. 2000). However, we have no information 
that Asian carp are adversely affecting the crystal darter.
    Gobies are another invasive fish species that could adversely 
affect crystal darter. As a benthic species, they might compete with 
darters for food and space, and their high reproductive rate could 
overwhelm the natural recruitment of the crystal darter. However, at 
this time gobies appear to be restricted to the Great Lakes. Whether 
gobies would occur in the swift waters preferred by the crystal darter 
is not known.
    The zebra mussel has invaded the Mississippi River and can be quite 
abundant at certain locations. When abundant, zebra mussels can 
significantly alter the water quality of the river by filtering out the 
food in the water column that larval fish and other organisms depend 
on. They can also deplete the river of oxygen, both while alive (for 
respiration) or once dead (from decomposition). They can completely 
alter the structure of the bottom of the river, making it a solid mass 
of live zebra mussels or their shells. Crystal darters prefer stable 
sand gravel bars in fast-flowing reaches, where zebra mussels are not 
as abundant. It is, therefore, unlikely that zebra mussels will have a 
significant direct impact on these kinds of habitats. We have no 
information to indicate they represent a threat to the crystal darter 
at this time.
    Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily 
available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that disease or predation may 
present a threat to the crystal darter such that the petitioned action 
may be warranted.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The petition (p. 286) states that ``no existing regulatory 
mechanisms adequately protect this species or its habitat,'' and citing 
NatureServe (2008) explains that few populations are ``appropriately 
managed and protected.'' NatureServe (2008) reports that few (1 to 3) 
occurrences of this species are appropriately protected and managed, 
stating: ``At least one site is known to be protected, the lower Bayou 
Pierre complex in Claiborne and Copiah Counties, Mississippi. For the 
most part, the species is protected from harvest, but generally there 
is no protection from upstream siltation or pollution sources.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    In contrast to the above statement in the Petition, there are a 
number of regulatory mechanisms in place to protect the crystal darter. 
In 11 of the 15 States where the species is known to occur, the crystal 
darter receives special designated protective status as a species of 
concern, threatened or endangered within the State. While the specific 
designation in each State provides slightly different protections, they 
generally protect the species from direct harm, but do not protect its 
habitat. However, habitat protections across the range of the species 
are provided through section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Clean 
Water Act prohibits water-quality degradation, and administration of 
this authority has improved over the last several years in AR and OK 
(Davidson 2007). Hydropower dams are regulated by FERC under the FPA. 
The FPA provides for cooperation between FERC and other Federal and 
state agencies, including resource agencies, in licensing and 
relicensing power projects, including the authority to alter flow 
regimes such that they might reduce or avoid adverse effects to aquatic 
biota downstream. Sedimentation and siltation from construction, 
development, and timber practices are effectively minimized and or 
avoided through the implementation of best management practices, which 
are variably required or voluntary in nature. Therefore, we find that 
the petition and information readily available in our files do not 
provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate 
that inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is a threat to the 
crystal darter such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition (p. 286), citing Bauer and Clemmer (1983) and 
NatureServe (2008), states that the species could be affected by the 
introduction of nonnative fish species, and across its range is 
threatened by water pollution from a variety of sources. However, no 
specific evidence of these threats, or of the crystal darter's response 
to them, is given. The Petition (p. 286), citing NatureServe 2008, also 
claims that the crystal darter is ``vulnerable to stochastic genetic 
and environmental events because of its distribution in localized 
populations.''
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We have no specific information on the crystal darter's response to 
various introduced nonnative fish species or to the general threat of 
water pollution. However, Alabama established a rule in 2003 that makes 
it unlawful to intentionally stock or release any fish, mussel, snail, 
crayfish or their embryos, including baitfish, into the public waters 
of Alabama under the jurisdiction of the Division of Wildlife and 
Freshwater Fisheries. This rule, if enforced, could bolster protection 
of crystal darters and other imperiled biota.
    We next considered information in our files concerning other 
potential Factor E threats to the crystal darter. Loss of genetic 
variation through population bottlenecks, genetic drift, and inbreeding 
can result in increased homozygosity (sameness of genes), loss of 
additive variance, and increased expression of deleterious recessive 
alleles (Meffe 1986). Through these processes, loss of genetic variance 
leads to a decrease in fitness. Small and increasingly isolated crystal 
darter

[[Page 62272]]

populations may continue to suffer from decreasing within-population 
diversity as inbreeding among close relatives, which can lead to 
problems such as reduced fertility and fitness, increases in likelihood 
(Noss and Cooperrider 1994). Similarly, the random loss of adaptive 
genes through genetic drift may function to limit the ability of 
crystal darters to respond to changes in their environment (Noss and 
Cooperrider 1994). Small population sizes and inhibited gene flow 
between crystal darter populations caused by habitat fragmentation may 
increase the likelihood of local extinction (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 
1986). Unique genetic lines such as those from the Elk River population 
in West Virginia (Wood and Raley 2000) are of great importance for the 
long-term goals of maintaining genetic diversity and allowing future 
adaptation to changing conditions (Meffe 1986). These unique gene pools 
allow for the maintenance of between-population variance and can be 
sources of genetic stock for future management efforts (Meffe 1986) and 
adaptive potential in response to environmental change (Meffe 1987).
    Morrison et al. (2006) compared the genetic variation of the 
disjunct populations of the crystal darter from the Upper Mississippi 
River (Zumbro River, Minnesota), Lower Mississippi River (Saline River, 
Arkansas), Gulf Coast drainages (Pearl River, Louisiana and Cahaba 
River, Alabama), and the Ohio River Basin (Elk River, West Virginia). 
She compared the populations genetically using two different genetic 
systems and compared that to previous genetic studies of Wood and Raley 
(2000). She also compared the populations morphometrically (by body 
physical characteristics) and determined that the four populations are 
distinctly different. Based on her analysis, she concluded that the Elk 
River population constituted a distinct species. Welsh and Wood (2008) 
confirmed the uniqueness of the Elk River population and subsequently 
described that population of Crystallaria as Crystallaria cincotta, the 
diamond darter. They concluded the Elk River population to be the only 
extant population of this species and that the small size of the 
population makes it quite vulnerable to local extinctions. The Service 
has elevated the diamond darter to candidate status (75 FR 69222). So 
while we previously thought that loss of genetic variation represented 
by the Elk River population might pose a potential threat to the 
crystal darter, we now realize that this population is, in fact, a 
different species, and not the crystal darter. Further, we did not find 
evidence of potential loss of other genetically unique and important 
populations of the crystal darter that could pose a Factor E threat. 
Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily available 
in our files do not provide substantial scientific or commercial 
information to indicate that other natural or manmade factors affecting 
the species' continued existence may present a threat to the crystal 
darter such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum)

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition asserts that the spotted darter is threatened by 
sedimentation, impoundments, and stream channelization (Mayasich et al. 
2004, Simon 2005, as cited in Petition, p. 435). Citing Simon 2005, the 
Petition (p. 435) states that the species faces specific water-quality 
threats in many States, including Kentucky, New York, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The Petition (p. 435, citing various 
sources) asserts that the species is threatened by water pollution 
stemming from ``mountaintop removal'' coal mining in West Virginia.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Although few quantitative data have been gathered directly linking 
the effects of sedimentation, impoundment, chemical water quality, and 
other habitat modifications on spotted darter declines, the best 
available information strongly suggests that these factors resulted in 
historical extirpations of some populations (e.g., Mahoning River, Deer 
Creek, North Fork Kentucky River) and are a contributing factor in 
recent declines in parts of the range (e.g., Tippecanoe River, Barren 
River system). These threats, however, have not been linked to recent 
widespread declines throughout the range of the species. The effects of 
environmental legislation such as the Clean Water Act and Surface 
mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), and conservation programs 
including the Conservation Reserve Program and Conservation Reserve 
Enhancement Program have contributed to improvements in water quality 
and habitat quality in many stream systems with remaining extant 
populations of the species. In addition, the relatively intact (i.e., 
heavily forested) composition of some watersheds helps ameliorate the 
effects of activities that degrade local stream quality (e.g., in the 
Allegheny River watershed). Overall, the best available information 
does not indicate that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of the spotted darter's habitat or range 
is a significant threat or that it will cause substantial losses of 
population distribution or viability in all or a significant portion of 
the species range. Therefore, we find that the petition and information 
readily available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or 
range may present a threat to the spotted darter such that the 
petitioned action may be warranted.

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not assert it is a threat.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We have no information to indicate that overutilization of spotted 
darters for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 
purposes is a threat to spotted darters. Therefore, we find that the 
petition and information readily available in our files do not provide 
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes may present a threat to the spotted darter such 
that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition (pp. 435-436), citing various sources, states that 
predation from domestic and introduced predatory fishes following 
impoundment construction, as well as the introduction and spread of the 
exotic invasive fish the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus), threaten 
the spotted darter. However, the petition does not provide information 
demonstrating predation impacts to the spotted darter and how it may 
affect the species' status.

[[Page 62273]]

Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We have no information in our files that suggests or identifies 
predation as a threat to spotted darter. Some natural predation by 
piscivorous fish and wildlife occurs (Page 1983, p. 172). Commonly 
reported parasites of darters include metacercarial trematodes (black-
spot disease) flukes, nematodes, leeches, spiny-headed worms, and 
copepods (Page 1983, p. 173), but none of these are a significant 
threat to the spotted darter. Therefore, we find that the petition and 
information readily available in our files do not provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that disease or 
predation may present a threat to the spotted darter such that the 
petitioned action may be warranted.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that, ``A portion of spotted darter populations 
occur in streams on the Hoosier and Allegheny National Forests, where 
they are listed as sensitive species (Simon 2005). This designation, 
however, does not provide protection for the spotted darter's habitat. 
Instead, it requires the Forest Service to consider the impacts of 
their actions on the darter, but not to choose a benign alternative or 
to stop a project because of impacts to the species. Likewise, the 
darter is listed as endangered or threatened in several states, but 
these designations do not provide regulatory protection for the 
darter's habitat.'' The Petition provides no specific information 
indicating what threats require adequate regulation by the U.S. Forest 
Service or the States.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    While a U.S. Forest Service designation as a sensitive species does 
not by itself provide habitat protections, the U.S. Forest Service is 
held to the same Clean Water Act section 404 requirements as a private 
entity as well as additional guidelines per the Forest Service's Land 
and Resource Management Plans.
    Except for West Virginia, all States within the range of the 
spotted darter have legislation that provides protections for rare 
animal species. The spotted darter is on the State list of protected 
species in New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Of these three, only the 
New York law extends protection beyond prohibiting the possession, 
sale, transportation, or killing of listed species. The New York law 
also prohibits any alteration of occupied habitat that is likely to 
negatively affect one or more essential behaviors of such species (6 
NYCRR, part 182). Except for in New York, State threatened and 
endangered species laws do not address the primary threat to spotted 
darters: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range.
    In summary, existing regulatory mechanisms, including the Clean 
Water Act and State endangered species regulaitons provide some 
protection to spotted darters. The Petition did not present more 
specific information as to the nature of the threats that require 
additional regulation, and we have no additional information in our 
files. Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily 
available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms may present a threat to the spotted darter such 
that the petitioned action may be warranted.

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition cites NatureServe (2008) that ``Remaining populations 
of spotted darter are small and isolated and therefore vulnerable to 
stochastic extinction, inbreeding depression, and other perils that 
face small populations with low genetic diversity.''
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    A few spotted darter populations appear to be small and isolated. 
Individuals in small populations are more likely to suffer from 
decreased fitness (i.e., ability to produce viable offspring) as 
inbreeding among close relatives occurs and results in greater 
expression of deleterious recessive genes (Allendorf and Luikart 2007, 
pp. 306, 315). Genetic drift (i.e., random change in gene frequencies) 
is also more likely to result in reduced genetic diversity in small 
populations, which may cause loss of genes that could allow the 
population to adapt to environmental change. These factors can increase 
the likelihood of extirpation (Allendorf and Luikart 2007, p. 355). The 
specific effects of genetic isolation on population dynamics in extant 
spotted darter populations, however, are not clear.
    Climate change is expected to result in rising average temperatures 
throughout the range of the spotted darter and altered precipitation 
patterns, likely resulting in elevated stream temperature regimes and 
lower summer base-flows (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 107, 111-112, 117-120). 
Higher stream temperatures may result in reduced reproductive success, 
and low base flows favor more tolerant stream fishes. Migration of 
spotted darters as an adaptation to climate changes is unlikely, due to 
their limited mobility, restriction to defined stream systems, and 
extensive impoundment throughout the Ohio River basin. According to the 
NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index, release 2.01, spotted 
darters are considered moderately vulnerable to climate change, which 
means their abundance and/or range extent are likely to decrease by 
2050 (Applegate 2010). Specific impacts to spotted darters resulting 
from climate change are not clear.
    In summary, both limited genetic variation and the effects of 
climate change are potential future threats to spotted darter. However, 
the information provided by the Petition and readily available in our 
files is not adequate to determine specific impacts to the species, or 
to identify either as a significant threat affecting the species 
viability. Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily 
available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that other natural or manmade 
factors affecting the species' continued existence may present a threat 
to the spotted darter such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Florida Bog frog (Rana okaloosae)

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The Petition states: ``The greatest threats to the Florida Bog Frog 
are stream impoundment and habitat succession (Molar 1992). This frog 
is particularly vulnerable to habitat destruction and modification 
because of its limited range and habitat specificity (NatureServe 
2008). This species' habitat has been degraded by improper watershed 
management, siltation stemming from poor road placement, and poor 
forest management in surrounding uplands (Molar 1992, NatureServe 
2008).''

[[Page 62274]]

    The petition continues ``Enge (2005) cites logging, groundwater 
use, siltation from dirt roads and cleared lands, impoundment, and poor 
management of adjacent upland habitat as threats to amphibian species 
in ravine habitats in the Florida Panhandle, including R. okaloosae. 
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2009) cites 
threats to the Bog Frog as siltation, pollution, and excess surface 
runoff where roads cross slopes above streams, damming, and altered 
fire regime which allows hardwood succession along streams (http://www.fwc.state.fl.us/docs/FWCG/florida_bog_frog.pdf). The Commission 
cites altered fire regime, altered hydrologic regime, groundwater 
withdrawal, surface water diversion, and altered community structure as 
threats to the Bog Frog's habitat (http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Shrub_Swamp.pdf). The Florida Dept. of 
Environmental Protection lists the Florida Bog Frog as occurring at 
Rocky Bayou State Park where its habitat is threatened by potential 
loss of submerged and emergent vegetation due to increased residential 
housing along the preserve boundary, and by high use of the preserve as 
a water skiing area which may have an impact on the natural submerged 
and emergent vegetation. There are also recurring issues with high 
bacteria counts in the preserve waters adjacent to the state park 
(http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/rocky/info.htm).''
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Based on the information in our files, we disagree with the 
interpretation of the information in the sources cited in the Petition. 
For instance, while the Petition states that, ``This frog is 
particularly vulnerable to habitat destruction and modification because 
of its limited range and habitat specificity (NatureServe 2008).'' 
NatureServe (2008) also states that ``many to very many occurrences are 
appropriately protected and managed.'' Additionally, the Petition's 
claim that ``This species' habitat has been degraded by improper 
watershed management, siltation stemming from poor road placement, and 
poor forest management in surrounding uplands (Molar 1992, NatureServe 
2008),'' is qualified by NatureServe (2008) based on Molar (1992) 
stating that frog populations are ``often not negatively affected by 
this [meaning * * * improper watershed management, siltation stemming 
from poor road placement, and poor forest management in surrounding 
uplands].'' Further, since EAFB contains upwards of 90 percent of the 
known range and at least 95 percent of the known sites for this 
species, many of the threats are most appropriately applied to the 5 
percent of sites remaining that are in private ownership, as habitat 
management activities specific to the Florida bog frog have been 
ongoing on EAFB for approximately 5 years.
    Monitoring and management activities are laid out in the Draft 
Threatened and Endangered Species Component Plan (EAFB 2006, pp. 12-20 
to 12-24) guided by the recommendations of the Florida Bog Frog 
Management Plan (Jackson 2004), and an Integrated Natural Resources 
Management Plan (EAFB 2010). The Draft Threatened and Endangered 
Species Component Plan (2006) lays out a comprehensive strategy to 
monitor and manage the species on EAFB including 100 percent resurvey 
of known sites, resample of 25 percent of previously visited sites, and 
survey of 20 new sites annually. Management for the bog frog includes 
prescribed burning, invasive species control, and erosion control not 
only at known bog frog sites, but also throughout entire Conservation 
Management Units, as necessary (EAFB 2006, pp. 12-21 to 12-22).
    In addition the State of Florida (2006) acquired substantial 
acreage located between EAFB and Blackwater River State Forest, which 
is intended to help protect the areas upstream of and located outside 
of EAFB. Based on the existing management and protection of these 
areas, the threats cited in the Petition have been largely alleviated. 
The persistence of the Florida bog frog is tied strongly to management 
actions on the base. Although funding for management of State-listed 
species is not mandatory, EAFB provides beneficial management actions 
for the Florida bog frog while managing for overall ecosystem health 
and Federally listed species (EAFB 2006). Therefore, we find that the 
petition and information readily available in our files do not provide 
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the 
species' habitat or range may present a threat to the Florida bog frog 
such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states: ``Amphibians are collected from the wild for 
use as food, pets, and for the biological and medicinal supply markets 
(AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/exploitation.html). 
Dodd (1997) states: ``Collecting specimens for the pet trade or 
biological laboratories probably has had some impact on local 
(Southeast) amphibian populations, but few data are available'' (p. 
183).''
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    While we agree that amphibian collection in the southeastern United 
States is a potential threat to amphibians, it is unlikely that this 
species would receive substantial collection pressure as 90 percent of 
the known range is located on EAFB, and access to the Base is 
restricted. Therefore, we find that the petition and information 
readily available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that the overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may 
present a threat to the Florida bog frog such that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states, ``New diseases and increased susceptibility of 
amphibians to existing diseases are known to be contributing to the 
decline of amphibian species (Blaustein et al. 1994, Laurance et al. 
1996, Berger et al. 1998, Daszak 2000, Kiesecker et al. 2001, reviewed 
in AmphibiaWeb 2009, http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/diseases.html). 
Stress from factors such as habitat loss and fragmentation, chemical 
pollution, climate change, invasion of exotic species, increased UV-B 
radiation, and natural population fluctuations may increase the 
susceptibility of amphibians to disease (Carey 1993, Dodd 1997, Fellers 
et al. 2001, Kiesecker at al. 2001, AmphibiaWeb 2009). Pathogens known 
to cause infectious disease in amphibians include bacterial, fungal, 
viral, metazoan, water mold, and trematode agents (Wright and Whitaker 
2001 in AmphibiaWeb 2009). Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus, 
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) has had severe impacts on amphibian

[[Page 62275]]

populations worldwide. Chytrid fungus is known to be present in the 
southeastern United States (AmphibiaWeb 2009) and potentially threatens 
the Florida bog frog. In addition to disease, there has been a 
widespread increase of amphibian deformities and malformations (http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/deformities.html).''
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition, while identifying potential threats to amphibians in 
the Southeast under this factor, does not cite to any specific known 
threat to the Florida bog frog, and we have no information in our files 
to indicate that disease or predation are presently affecting the 
species. Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily 
available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that disease or predation may 
present a threat to the Florida bog frog such that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states: ``The Florida Bog Frog is considered a Species 
of Special Concern in Florida, but this designation does not provide 
any regulatory protection for its declining habitat. Approximately 90 
percent of the total range may be within Eglin Air Force Base, but 
national security concerns take precedence over wildlife management 
(NatureServe 2008).''
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Based on the continued and comprehensive management of the Florida 
bog frog for the last several years on EAFB, the species is being 
adequately protected and managed throughout approximately 90 percent of 
its range. In addition, State efforts have furthered the protection of 
the remaining three sites located outside of EAFB. We have no 
information in our files, nor has any specific information been 
provided in the Petition, to support that national security is 
affecting or limiting the management of this species. Therefore, we 
find that the petition and information readily available in our files 
do not provide substantial scientific or commercial information to 
indicate that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may 
present a threat to the Florida bog frog such that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states: ``Dodd (1997) lists rarity as a potential 
threat to the Florida Bog Frog. Rana okaloosae is potentially 
threatened by hybridization with R. clamitans clamitans (Gorman et al. 
2009). Enge (2005) cites water pollution, recreation, and trash dumping 
as threats to amphibians in the Florida Panhandle. The Florida Wildlife 
Conservation Commission cites water pollution and invasive species as 
threats to the Bog Frog (http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Shrub_Swamp.pdf). Enge (2005) cites feral hogs as a threat to 
amphibians in the Florida Panhandle.
    The petition continues ``Other factors which threaten imperiled 
amphibian populations in the Southeast include water pollution from 
acidification, toxins, and endocrine disrupting chemicals, reduced prey 
availability, climate change, UV-B radiation, invasive species, and 
synergistic effects from these and other threats. Acidification of 
soils and water bodies is detrimental for amphibians. Acidification of 
amphibian habitat can result from acid precipitation and from acid mine 
drainage. Acid disrupts ion balance in both terrestrial and aquatic 
life stages of amphibians, impairs chemosensory reception, and inhibits 
larval feeding (Dodd 1997). Embryos and larvae are particularly 
sensitive to decreased pH.
    Terrestrial salamanders avoid acidified soils. Acidification also 
has indirect effects which can kill embryos, larvae, and adults by 
interfering with egg development, disrupting trophic interactions, and 
inducing chronic environmental stress. Low pH also makes amphibians 
more susceptible to deleterious effects from heavy metals and increased 
UV-B radiation (Dodd 1997).''
    The petition further states that ``Environmental toxins pose a 
threat to amphibians in the Southeast due to lethal and sub-lethal 
effects which can include mortality, decreased growth rate, behavioral 
and developmental abnormalities, lowered reproductive success, weakened 
immunity, and hermaphroditism (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to toxic 
substances because of the permeable nature of their skin. A wide range 
of chemical stressors are known to negatively affect amphibians 
including heavy metals, pesticides, phenols, carbon tetrachloride, 
nitrogen based fertilizers, and road salt (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 
2009). The presence of toxins can also make amphibians more susceptible 
to disease (Dodd 1997). Amphibians are also threatened by endocrine-
disrupting chemicals in the environment (Hayes et al. 2006). Dodd 
(1997) states: ``Amphibians are likely to be especially sensitive to 
the action of endocrine mimics because they are in close direct contact 
with chemicals in their environment, and the amphibian skin and egg 
capsule are highly permeable. Because hormones normally function in 
minute quantities and are vital to normal development, susceptibility 
to xenobiotics could be devastating during the complex changes that 
occur during hormonally-induced amphibian metamorphosis (p. 182).'' 
Toxins and other chemicals can also harm amphibians by reducing food 
availability. Dodd (1997) states: ``If species that are preyed upon by 
amphibians decline or disappear, amphibian populations may be expected 
to follow suit. The use of pesticides and the influence of toxics, pH, 
and habitat alteration may be expected to affect amphibian prey 
populations (p. 184).''
    The petition continues ``Climate change poses a threat for 
amphibians because it will alter rainfall and temperature patterns and 
affect soil moisture (Dodd 1997, Field et al. 2007). Amphibians are 
particularly sensitive to minute changes in moisture and temperature, 
and changes in climate can affect breeding behavior, reproductive 
success, and immune function (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ClimateChange.html). Amphibians which breed in temporary ponds or in 
water bodies that are sensitive to changes in groundwater level are 
particularly susceptible to climate change effects. Drought can lead to 
localized extirpation, which combined with habitat fragmentation and 
impaired dispersal, can contribute to extinction (Dodd 1997). During 
the past few decades, levels of UV-B radiation in the atmosphere have 
significantly increased. For amphibians, UV-B radiation can cause 
direct mortality as well as sublethal effects including decreased 
hatching success, decreased growth rate, developmental abnormalities, 
and immune dysfunction (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/UVB.html).
    Southeastern amphibians are also threatened by the invasion of 
nonnative species which prey on or compete with

[[Page 62276]]

native amphibians. Nonnative fishes can negatively affect amphibian 
populations through predation, competition, and disease introduction. 
Introduced nonnative amphibians such as the marine toad (Bufo marinus) 
and Cuban tree frog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) are potentially 
harmful for native amphibians in the Southeast. Rossi (1981) found that 
anuran species richness was reduced in an area where B. marinus was 
established (in Dodd 1997). Introduced mammals, such as armadillos and 
wild hogs, and introduced birds like cattle egrets ``may exact a 
substantial toll on amphibian populations'' (Dodd 1997). Invasive fire 
ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also a potential threat for Southeastern 
amphibians. Dodd (1997) states: ``Ground dwelling vertebrates are 
especially sensitive to this ravenous predator, and fire ants have been 
reported to kill endangered Houston toads (Bufo houstonensis) as they 
metamorphose. Fire ants are especially abundant in the moist perimeter 
surrounding ponds and lakes, and they can float in mats across ponds 
from vegetation clump to vegetation clump. Fire ants have few predators 
and have expanded their range throughout the Southeast'' (p. 183). See: 
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/IntroSp.html. Synergisms between 
multiple threats could contribute to the extinction of Southeast 
amphibians. Multiple factors acting together have both lethal and 
sublethal effects (http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/synergisms.html). 
For example, increased UV-B radiation increases the susceptibility of 
amphibians to the effects of contaminants, pathogens and climate 
change. Dodd (1997): ``The amphibians of this area (the Southeast), and 
particularly the fully aquatic species, face a multitude of threats to 
their long-term existence. These threats generally do not act 
independently, but instead act in concert to have potentially serious 
long-term effects (p. 185).''
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    While the petition lists a multitude of potential threats to 
amphibians in the Southeast, many of these likely have limited 
relevance to the Florida bog frog. For instance, the only nonnative 
species that have been reported as problematic for this species are 
feral hogs, Chinese tallow, and other invasive plants. With respect to 
90 percent of the range, ongoing management for these species is 
already occurring on EAFB. Acidification, effects from UV-B radiation, 
endocrine-disrupting chemicals, reduced prey availability, climate 
change, and drought have not been reported as problems for this 
species. We have no specific evidence, nor does the Petition provide 
any, that any of these factors are affecting populations of the Florida 
bog frog. Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily 
available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that other natural or manmade 
factors affecting the species' continued existence may present a threat 
to the Florida bog frog such that the petitioned action may be 
warranted.

Greensboro Burrowing Crayfish (Cambarus catagius)

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition (p. 170) states ``Cambarus catagius occurs in Abbotts 
Creek and Pounders Fork which flow into High Rock Reservoir. Both 
streams are part of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Drainage that is impounded 
by dams of Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. The on-going effects of these 
impoundments are unknown.'' The petition also states that the known 
range of this species is restricted and affected by urban development, 
based on McGrath (1994).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Based on the information in our files, this species has never been 
found in surface waters (e.g., streams, creeks) and instead prefers 
`grassed areas which have been cleared at some point in the past. In a 
few suburban areas the yards graded into woods and burrows could be 
found continuing into the woods.' Therefore, instream impoundments 
should not constitute a threat to this species. While McGrath (1994) 
did suggest urban development is a threat, he also conceded that parks 
and utility corridors in urbanized settings could support populations. 
We also already know they have been found largely in previously 
disturbed areas (e.g., yards in urban and suburban areas). Further, 
NatureServe (2008) notes that, while decline in habitat quality is 
occurring, no decline has been noted in populations or occurrences, at 
least in the short term. Therefore, we find that the petition and 
information readily available in our files do not provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' 
habitat or range may present a threat to the Greensboro burrowing 
crayfish such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

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

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

Factor C. Disease or Predation

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

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition asserts that while the species occurs in Uwharrie 
National Forest in North Carolina, this does not confer regulatory 
protection to the species or habitat. Additionally, the Petition states 
that no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Based on information in our files, the majority of the locations 
where the species is found are areas that have been disturbed. It is 
likely that there are many urbanized areas that can support populations 
(e.g., parks and utility corridors), as long as the entire area is not 
converted to impervious surface. It does not appear that there is a 
lack of or inadequacy of necessary regulations protecting this species, 
because the species seems to thrive in these seemingly less than ideal 
areas. While

[[Page 62277]]

the petition asserts the species occurance in the Uwharrie National 
Forest in North Carolina does not confer regulatory protection to the 
species or habitat, the petition did not provide any evidence that a 
lack of regulatory mechanisms on the Forest has resulted in impacts to 
the species or its habitat. Therefore, we find that the petition and 
information readily available in our files do not provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms may present a threat to the Greensboro 
burrowing crayfish such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition lists generalized threats presented by nonnative 
species of crayfish in North Carolina, but does not provide any 
specific examples of impacts to this species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition does point to an observance of Procambrus clarkii in 
High Rock Reservoir near the mouth of South Potts Creek, but as we have 
pointed out previously, we have no records of this species occurring in 
surface waters and find it unlikely that these species would co-occur. 
Further, we do not have any information in our files indicating that 
impacts from nonnative crayfish are occurring or likely to become so 
for this species. Therefore, we do not believe a threat exists for this 
factor specific to this species. We find that the petition and 
information readily available in our files do not provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that other natural or 
manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence may present 
a threat to the Greensboro burrowing crayfish such that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.

Blood River Crayfish (Orconectes burri)

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition, citing NatureServe (2008), states that impoundment in 
the lower part of the drainage has contributed to the loss of suitable 
habitat. It also lists other threats to habitat including recreational 
fishing pressure and rechannelization of the drainage.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Information in our files indicates that the species occupies 
streams in rural watersheds that are not subjected to significant 
point-source pollution or other contaminants associated with urban 
runoff. However, these basins are influenced by general nonpoint-source 
storm water pollutants, primarily from agricultural sources, that 
affect the majority of stream basins in Kentucky. Potential pollutants 
include sediment (siltation), organic waste (from livestock or failing 
septic systems), pesticides, herbicides, lawn fertilizers, and other 
pollutants associated with roadways (e.g., gasoline, oil, antifreeze, 
road salt). Streams in these basins are also physically impaired as 
evidenced by narrow riparian zones and poor canopy cover (causing 
elevated stream temperatures and reduced energy inputs), entrenched and 
straightened channels (limiting the amount of instream habitat), eroded 
stream banks (causing increased bank scour and increased 
sedimentation), and widely fluctuating stream hydrographs (resulting in 
reduced base flows and more elevated and frequent flood events). Some 
of these physical impairments are caused by poor agricultural 
practices, but others are likely caused by improperly sized bridges 
and/or culverts, especially on county or unpaved roads.
    Despite these general threats, the Kentucky Division of Water has 
not included any streams from the Blood River basin on their 303d list 
of impaired waters (KDOW 2008, pp. 179-188). In fact, assessments 
conducted on four O. burri streams, Beechy Creek, Panther Creek, 
Wildcat Creek (the type locality), and the Blood River mainstem, 
revealed that all of these streams were fully supporting of the Warm 
Water Aquatic Habitat use designation (KDOW 2002, p. 168). Two of these 
streams, Panther Creek and Blood River (at Grubbs Lane), are routinely 
used by KDOW as reference reach streams (KDOW 2006, p. 33).
    Although the Blood River basin is influenced by nonpoint-source 
pollutants and some of its tributaries are physically impaired, there 
is no evidence that these problems constitute a serious threat to the 
Blood River crayfish. The overall threat level is low based on the 
scope (localized), intensity (low), and exposure (small) of these 
threats. While impoundments in the lower part of the drainage may have 
contributed to historic habitat loss, neither the Petition nor 
information in our files indicate this is a current or future threat to 
the species. Therefore, we find that the petition and information 
readily available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or 
range may present a threat to the Blood River crayfish such that the 
petitioned action may be warranted.

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition does not directly list any threats under this factor, 
but cites crayfish use as fishing bait for other factors.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Information in our files does indicate that crayfish are frequently 
used in Kentucky as fishing bait. Any person who has obtained a 
Kentucky resident or nonresident fishing license is permitted to 
possess up to 500 crayfish (301 KAR 1:130). This requirement pertains 
to any Kentucky species; no restrictions are in place for any KSNPC-
listed, rare, or uncommon species. Overutilization of some species 
could be a problem, especially for those species that have limited 
distributions. The Blood River crayfish may be used occasionally as a 
bait species, but we have no information that overutilization for 
recreational purposes is a significant problem. Scientific or 
educational researchers wishing to collect Blood River crayfish or any 
other aquatic species (fish, mussels) in Kentucky for scientific 
purposes must obtain a Scientific or Educational Wildlife Collection 
Permit from the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 
(KDFWR). These annual permits cost $10 (Educational) or $200 
(Scientific) and require that the permit holder provide an annual 
report of their findings to KDFWR. All Kentucky crayfishes, including 
O. burri, are also threatened by an increasingly popular crayfish pet 
industry. Many crayfishes are highly valued due to their large size and 
attractive features (color, morphology). Kentucky species are being 
collected, transported, traded, and sold domestically and 
internationally under existing State regulations that

[[Page 62278]]

allow the capture and possession of 500 individuals. Kentucky species 
can be found on several Web sites of crayfish vendors.
    While the Blood River crayfish could be harvested for scientific 
research, by collectors for sale/trade, or by fishermen, we have no 
information that the species is in high demand by collectors or 
researchers at the present time based on numbers of individuals 
observed by Taylor and Sabaj (1998) and recently by KSNPC (Ryan Evans, 
KSNPC, personal communication 2008). In general, we have no information 
that this listing factor represents a significant threat to the 
species. The overall threat level is low based on the scope 
(localized), immediacy (nonimminent), intensity (low), and exposure 
(small) of the threat. Therefore, we find that the petition and 
information readily available in our files do not provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may 
present a threat to the Blood River crayfish such that the petitioned 
action may be warranted.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and 
does not assert it is a threat.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Information in our files indicates that disease and predation are 
not known to be a significant threat for this species and is, instead, 
a normal part of its life history. Some natural predators of the 
species include the raccoon (Procyon lotor), river otter (Lontra 
canadensis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), mudpuppy (Necturus 
maculosus), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), water snakes (Nerodia 
spp.), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and various sunfishes (Micropterus 
and Lepomis spp.). Mortality from disease or predation likely occurs 
but has not eliminated this and other crayfish species in the past, and 
we have no information that disease or predation poses a substantial 
threat to the species in the future. Therefore, we find that the 
petition and information readily available in our files do not provide 
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that 
disease or predation may present a threat to Blood River crayfish such 
that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition lists the designation of the species as threatened in 
Kentucky, but points out that this designation does not protect habitat 
for the species.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Information in our files is summarized below. The Blood River 
crayfish and its habitats are afforded some protection from water 
quality and habitat degradation under the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Kentucky's Forest Conservation Act of 1998 (KRS 
149.330-355), Kentucky's Agriculture Water Quality Act of 1994 (KRS 
224.71-140), additional Kentucky laws and regulations regarding natural 
resources and environmental protection (KRS 146.200-360; KRS 224; 401 
KAR 5:026, 5:031), and Tennessee's Water Quality Control Act of 1977 
(T.C.A. 69-3-101).
    The Blood River crayfish is not State-listed in Tennessee, but it 
has been designated as a threatened species in Kentucky (KSNPC 2005, p. 
11). However, this designation conveys no legal protection. The Blood 
River crayfish may be collected for bait or captured for use as pets 
(possession limit of 500) under current Kentucky law (301 KAR 1:130), 
and the species may also be collected for scientific or educational 
research reasons by obtaining an Educational or Scientific Wildlife 
Collection Permit from KDFWR.
    Based on numbers of individuals observed by Taylor and Sabaj (1998) 
and recently by KSNPC (Ryan Evans, KSNPC, personal communication 2008), 
the species is not being significantly reduced in number by bait 
collecting, the pet trade, or scientific research. The overall threat 
level is low for this listing factor. Therefore, we find that the 
petition and information readily available in our files do not provide 
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may present a threat to 
the Blood River crayfish such that the petitioned action may be 
warranted.

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition lists the introduction of invasive species, which are 
used for fishing bait as a potential threat.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Information in our files indicates that the Blood River crayfish 
could be threatened by the introduction of nonnative crayfish species 
into its habitat. Species such as Orconectes rusticus (rusty crayfish) 
have been widely introduced across the United States because of their 
popularity as bait species. These species have the potential to 
displace native crayfishes through a variety of mechanisms such as 
direct competition or reproductive interference (Taylor and Schuster 
2004, p. 20). At present, we have no information that O. rusticus 
occurs in the same streams as O. burri as no individuals were observed 
during the most recent surveys by KSNPC (Ryan Evans, KSNPC, personal 
communication, 2008). We also conclude that it is unlikely that O. 
rusticus will be introduced directly into Blood River tributaries 
because these streams are not heavily used for fishing. On the other 
hand, it is possible that O. rusticus could invade the Blood River 
system at a later date because it has the potential to be used as bait 
species in Kentucky Lake, thereby providing a mechanism for 
introduction into the Blood River and its upstream tributaries (Guenter 
Schuster, EKU, personal communication, 2008). At present, this listing 
factor is not considered to be a significant threat, but future 
introductions of O. rusticus into the Blood River basin are possible. 
Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily available 
in our files do not provide substantial scientific or commercial 
information to indicate that other natural or manmade factors affecting 
the species' continued existence may present a threat to the Blood 
River crayfish such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Finding

    In summary, the petition included 404 species that are primarily 
aquatic and found mainly in the southeastern United States. After a 
careful review of the Petition and information readily available in our 
files, we have found that the Petition does not present substantial 
information regarding 11 of these species.

Sarah's Hydroptila Caddisfly

    The petition states that Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly faces threats 
under Factors A and D, but does not provide specific examples or 
additional information. After review of the information in our files, 
we find that the

[[Page 62279]]

species is located in more locations (11 versus 4) within EAFB than 
indicated in the Petition, and that the species is adequately protected 
from threats through EAFB's INRMP and existing State and Federal laws 
and regulations.

Rogue Creek Hydroptila Caddisfly

    The Petition states that the Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly faces 
threats under Factors A and D, but does not provide specific examples 
or additional information. After review of the information in our 
files, we find that the species is located in eight locations within 
EAFB, and that the species is adequately protected from threats through 
EAFB's INRMP and existing State and Federal laws and regulations.

 Florida Brown Checkered Summer Sedge

    The petition states that the Florida brown checkered summer sedge 
faces threats under Factors A and D, but does not provide specific 
examples or additional information. After review of the information in 
our files, we find that the species is widespread, but not common on 
EAFB, and that the species is adequately protected from threats through 
EAFB's INRMP and existing State and Federal laws and regulations. We 
currently have no information on other populations outside of EAFB or 
any threats acting on those populations, though the occurrence in 
Hamilton County, Florida, is disputed.

Ouachita Creekshell

    The petition claims that the Ouachita creekshell is threatened by 
Factors A, D and E. However, the petition, as well as the information 
available in our files concerning threats to the species, lacks detail 
on the species response to these general threats. For example, many 
Ouachita creekshell extant and historical populations occur on public 
lands (e.g., Ouachita National Forest, State parks, and wildlife 
management areas). Approximately 85 percent of the Ouachita River basin 
upstream of Lake Ouachita is within Ouachita National Forest. 
Accordingly, populations of this species are substantially protected 
from habitat destruction and alteration. Furthermore, we concluded in 
our 2009 status assessment that stressors are likely to be localized 
and moderately degrade aquatic biota and habitat over a portion of the 
watershed and that the impacts of mining are localized and have a 
minimum effect on the species rangewide. We concluded in the status 
assessment that the species did not warrant listing, and neither the 
petition nor information in our files provided any substantial new 
information.

Crystal Darter

    The petition (pp. 285-286) claims that the crystal darter faces 
threats under Factors A, D, and E. However, the petition, as well as 
the information available in our files concerning threats to crystal 
darter populations, lacks detail on the response of these populations 
to general threats. The Service conducted a species assessment of the 
crystal darter in 2009 and found that low threat levels do exist under 
Factors A and E. However, we concluded in the status assessment that 
these factors do not threaten the darter to the point it meets the 
definition of a ``threatened species'' or an ``endangered species.'' 
Biologists among different States have indicated that new technologies 
have allowed for more effective sampling of crystal darters and suggest 
that they are more abundant and widely distributed than originally 
believed. Furthermore, there exists little information that known 
populations have either declined or increased in their abundance. The 
main source of information for identifying the species as uncommon is 
based largely on the fact that historically specimens had been rarely 
collected. In the species assessment we conducted in 2009 (Service 
2009), we found that, along with the current status information, the 
information on the threats to the species did not support a proposal to 
list the species and, therefore, it was not elevated to candidate 
status. Neither the petition nor information in our files provides any 
substantial new information on the threats to the crystal darter.

Spotted Darter

    The petition cites threats from factors A, C, D, and E. However, 
many of these are only general threats and there is no information that 
they are acting negatively on the species, including those threats 
identified from inadequate regulatory mechanisms, limited genetic 
variation, climate change, and predation. The information provided by 
the petition and readily available in our files is not specific enough 
to determine impacts to the species from these threats, or to identify 
any of these as a significant threat affecting the species viability.
    The petition does present information on historical habitat 
degradation, however, the information in our files does not indicate 
that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the spotted darter's habitat or range is a significant 
threat or that it will cause substantial losses of population 
distribution or viability in the species range.

Florida Bog Frog

    The petition cites threats under Factors A, B, C, D, and E. 
However, threats from habitat destruction and modification and from the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms are largely alleviated 
through existing management and protection of habitat on EAFB, while 
the threats listed under Factors B, C, and E are largely general 
threats and likely have very limited relevance to this species. In 
addition, EAFB management is targeting emerging threats to the species 
already (like those presented by invasive plants).

Greensboro Burrowing Crayfish

    The petition asserts that threats from Factors A, D, and E are 
affecting this species but does not provide specific examples or 
information to demonstrate this. Based on information in our files, 
this species is more widespread than originally thought and seems to 
prefer previously disturbed areas in urban and suburban areas. Further, 
NatureServe (2008) notes that while decline in habitat quality is 
occurring, no decline has been noted in populations or occurrences, at 
least in the short term.

Blood River Crayfish

    The petition states that the Blood River crayfish faces threats 
under Factors A, D, and E, but does not provide specific examples or 
additional information. As demonstrated by the threats analysis above, 
there is no known significant threat to the Blood River crayfish as a 
result of any of the five listing factors. The species currently 
occupies watersheds that are subjected to water quality impairment and 
physical habitat disturbance, but it does not appear that these threats 
are adversely affecting the species' status. The Blood River crayfish 
appears to be maintaining its populations and remains the dominant 
crayfish species in these watersheds.

Florida Fairy Shrimp and South Florida Rainbow Snake

    Because the information presented by petitioners as well as 
information in our files suggests that the species are already extinct, 
they do not meet the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species under the Act (section 3(6) and 3(20), 
respectively). Therefore, an analysis of the five threat factors was 
not appropriate.
    In summary, we reviewed the information presented in the petition 
and evaluated that information in relation to information readily 
available

[[Page 62280]]

in our files. On the basis of our determination under section 
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we conclude that the petition does not present 
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that 
listing the Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly, Rogue Creek hydroptila 
caddisfly, Florida brown checkered summer sedge, Florida fairy shrimp, 
South Florida rainbow snake, Ouachita creekshell, crystal darter, 
spotted darter, Florida bog frog, Greensboro burrowing crayfish, and 
Blood River crayfish under the Act as endangered or threatened may be 
warranted at this time. There is no evidence either presented in the 
petition or available in our files, to indicate that any of these 
species are affected by the five factors, acting either singly or in 
combination, to the point that the species may meet the definition of a 
``threatened species'' or an ``endangered species'' under the Act. The 
information does not contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these 
factors may be operative threats that act on these species.
    Although we will not review the status of any of these species at 
this time, we encourage interested parties to continue to gather data 
and submit information that will assist with the conservation of 
Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly, Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly, Florida 
brown checkered summer sedge, Ouachita creekshell, crystal darter, 
spotted darter, Florida bog frog, Greensboro burrowing crayfish, and 
Blood River crayfish. We likewise encourage interested parties to 
submit any information they possess on the Florida fairy shrimp, and 
South Florida rainbow snake. You may submit your information or 
materials to Chief, Division of Endangered Species, Southeast Region 
Office (see ADDRESSES), at any time.

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 Office.

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: September 26, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25672 Filed 10-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P