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 in the Southeastern United States as Threatened or Endangered With Critical ; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 62260 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR comments, or questions concerning this Petition. On May 10, 2010, we provided finding to the above street address. additional formal written and Wildlife Service FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: acknowledgement of receipt. Janet Mizzi, Chief, Division of Petitioners developed an initial list of 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered Species, Ecological species by searching NatureServe for Services, Southeast Regional Office, species that ‘‘occur in the twelve states [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0091; MO typically considered the southeast, 92210–0–0008] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES) by telephone at 404–679– occur in aquatic, riparian, or wetland Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 7169; or by facsimile at 404–679–7081. and appeared to be imperiled.’’ and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding on If you use a telecommunications device Species were considered imperiled if a Petition To List 404 Species in the for the deaf (TDD), please call the they were classified as G1 or G2 by Southeastern United States as Federal Information Relay Service NatureServe, near threatened or worse Threatened or Endangered With (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. by the International Union for Critical Habitat Conservation of Nature (IUCN), or a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: species of concern, threatened or AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Background endangered by the American Fisheries Interior. Society. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires NatureServe ranks ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition that we make a finding on whether a finding. range from critically imperiled (G1) to petition to list, delist, or reclassify a imperiled (G2) to vulnerable (G3) to species presents substantial scientific or SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and apparently secure (G4) to demonstrably commercial information indicating that Wildlife Service (Service), announce a secure (G5). Status is assessed and a petitioned action may be warranted. partial 90-day finding on a petition to documented at three distinct geographic We are to base this finding on list 404 species in the southeastern scales: Global (G), national (N), and information found in the petition, United States as threatened or subnational (S) (i.e., state/province/ supporting information submitted with endangered under the Endangered municipal). Subspecies are similarly the petition, and information otherwise Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) assessed with a subspecific (T) available in our files. The Act requires and to designate critical habitat. Based numerical assignment. Assessment by that, to the maximum extent practicable, on our review, we find that for 11 of the NatureServe of any species as being we are to make this finding within 90 404 species: Sarah’s hydroptila critically imperiled (G1), imperiled (G2), days of our receipt of the petition, and (Hydroptila sarahae), Rogue or vulnerable (G3) does not constitute a publish our notice of this finding Creek hydroptila caddisfly (Hydroptila recommendation by NatureServe for promptly in the Federal Register. okaloosa), brown checkered listing under the Act. NatureServe status Our standard for substantial scientific summer sedge (Polycentropus assessment procedures have different or commercial information within the floridensis), Florida fairy shrimp criteria, evidence requirements, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with (Dexteria floridana), South Florida purposes, and taxonomic coverage than regard to a 90-day petition finding is rainbow ( erytrogramma government lists of endangered and ‘‘that amount of information that would seminola), Ouachita creekshell ( threatened species, and, therefore, these lead a reasonable person to believe that arkansasensis), two types of lists should not be the measure proposed in the petition ( asprella), expected to coincide. For example, an may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). ( maculatum), Florida bog important factor in many legal listing If we find that substantial scientific or ( okaloosae), Greensboro processes is the extent to which a commercial information was presented, burrowing (Cambarus species is already receiving protection the Act requires that we promptly catagius), and Blood River crayfish of some —a consideration not review the status of the species (status (Orconectes burri), the petition does not included in the NatureServe review), which is subsequently present substantial scientific or conservation status ranks. Similarly, the summarized in our 12-month finding. commercial information indicating that IUCN and American Fisheries Society listing may be warranted at this time. Petition History do not apply the same criteria to their Therefore, we are not initiating a status ranking determinations as those On April 20, 2010, we received, via encompassed in the Act and its review for these 11 species. However, electronic mail, a petition from the we ask the public to submit to us any implementing regulations. Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), On May 7, 2010, the Service received new information that becomes available Rivers Alliance, Clinch correspondence from the Southeastern concerning the status of, or threats to, Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Council, dated May 2, 2010, with these 11 species or their habitat at any Restoration Network, Forests an explanation of their involvement in time. Council, West Highlands formulation of the petition. The Council DATES: The finding announced in this Conservancy, Tierra Curry, and Noah was contacted by CBD, which solicited document was made on October 6, 2011. Greenwald to list 404 aquatic, riparian, its involvement in the preparation of the ADDRESSES: This finding is available on and wetland species from the subject petition. Southeastern Fishes the Internet at http:// southeastern United States as threatened Council members provided expertise in www.regulations.gov at Docket Number or endangered species and to designate review of the CBD list of fishes in the [FWS–R4–ES–2011–0091]. Supporting critical habitat concurrent with listing draft petition. documentation we used in preparing under the Endangered Species Act. The On May 27, 2010, the Freshwater this finding is available for public petition clearly identified itself as such, Mollusk Conservation Society submitted inspection, by appointment, during and included the requisite identification a letter to the Regional Director, Fish normal business hours at the U.S. Fish information as required by 50 CFR and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century 424.14(a). On April 21, 2010, via in support of the CBD petitions’ Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30345. Please submit electronic mail to Noah Greenwald at inclusion of a large number of any new information, materials, CBD, we acknowledged receipt of the freshwater mollusks, including the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62261

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

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 Threatened Wildlife and Plants Spotted frog; Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly; Flor- (ETWP); Candidate Review for Listing as ida bog frog; Greensboro burrowing crayfish. Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of Re- view. 56 FR 58804 ..... 11/21/1991 ETWP; Animal Candidate Review for Listing as En- Florida bog frog; Greensboro burrowing crayfish. dangered or Threatened Species. 54 FR 554 ...... 01/06/1989 ETWP; Animal Notice of Review ...... Florida bog frog; Greensboro burrowing crayfish. 49 FR 21664 ..... 05/22/1984 ETWP; Review of Invertebrate Wildlife for Listing as Greensboro burrowing crayfish. Endangered or Threatened Species.

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 62262 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62263

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 62264 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62265

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 62266 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(Tennessee River). Within Kentucky, the Evaluation of Information for This review of the species varied depending range of O. burri is contained entirely Finding on the amount of information presented within the boundaries of Calloway Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) in the petition and that amount of County, where the species is known and its implementing regulations at 50 information available in our files. from the Blood River mainstem and CFR 424 set forth the procedures for Sarah’s Hydroptila Caddisfly seven of its tributaries: Wildcat Creek adding a species to, or removing a (Hydroptila sarahae) (the type locality), Panther Creek, species from, the Federal Lists of Factor A. The Present or Threatened McCullough Fork, Goose Creek, Beechy Endanged and Threatened Wildlife and Destruction, Modification, or Creek, Grindstone Creek, and Lax Creek Plants. A species may be determined to Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or (Taylor and Schuster 2004, p. 145; Ryan be endangered or threatened due to one Range Evans, KSNPC, personal or more of the five factors described in communication, 2008). Within section 4(a)(1) of the Act: Information Provided in the Petition Tennessee, the species has been (A) The present or threatened The petition (p. 612) cites recorded from the North Fork Blood destruction, modification, or River and Middle Fork Blood River. NatureServe (2008) stating ‘‘anything curtailment of its habitat or range; that adversely affects water quality, Exhaustive collecting in the lower (B) Overutilization for commercial, Tennessee River system of western such as , siltation or recreational, scientific, or educational degradation of surrounding habitat Tennessee and Kentucky by Taylor and purposes; Sabaj (1998, p. 649) and a search of would be a threat to this species.’’ (C) Disease or predation; However, it provides no information on holdings in the National Museum of (D) The inadequacy of existing Natural History failed to document the actual threats to the species under this regulatory mechanisms; or factor. presence of the species outside of the (E) Other natural or manmade factors Blood River drainage. affecting its continued existence. Evaluation of Information Provided in Surveys conducted by Taylor and In considering what factors might the Petition and Available in Service Sabaj (1998) in 1996 revealed that O. constitute threats, we must look beyond Files burri was moderately abundant in the the mere exposure of the species to the We have no evidence in our files that Blood River and several of its tributaries factor to determine whether the species this species is facing threats under this in western Tennessee and Kentucky. responds to the factor in a way that factor. The petition (p. 612) states that Recent surveys by KSNPC during April, causes actual impacts to the species. If the species is known from 4 locations May, and June of 2008 confirmed the there is exposure to a factor, but no on EAFB, but information in our files species’ presence at the four previously response, or only a positive response, shows that it is actually extant at 11 reported Kentucky sites and recorded O. that factor is not a threat. If there is locations on the installation. EAFB is burri from six new Kentucky sites: (1) exposure and the species responds managed under an Integrated Natural Blood River at the KY 121 bridge negatively, the factor may be a threat Resource Plan (INRMP) (Science crossing; (2) Panther Creek at the KY and we then attempt to determine how Applications International Corporation 280 bridge crossing; (3) Goose Creek at significant a threat it is. If the threat is (SAIC) 2006) that was reviewed by and the KY 280 bridge crossing; (4) significant, it may drive or contribute to approved by the Service and the Florida Grindstone Creek at the KY 444 bridge the risk of of the species such Fish and Wildlife Conservation crossing; (5) Wildcat Creek at the Ralph that the species may warrant listing as Commission and that is protective of Wright Road bridge crossing; and (6) threatened or endangered as those terms water quality, and the steepheads, Lax Creek at the State Line Road bridge are defined by the Act. This does not spring runs, and creeks where this crossing (Ryan Evans, KSNPC, personal necessarily require empirical proof of a species occurs. Eglin’s overall communication, 2008; M. Floyd, threat. The combination of exposure and ecosystem management benefits the USFWS, personal observation, 2008). some corroborating evidence of how the species. All mission activities are Collections were made using a standard species is likely affected could suffice. required to avoid disturbing wetlands, seine (3.4 x 1.8 m (11 x 6 ft) with 0.3 The mere identification of factors that including the creeks inhabited by this cm (0.1 in) mesh), and approximately could affect a species negatively may species. In addition, the Service has 15–20 seine hauls or kicks were made not be sufficient to compel a finding partnered with EAFB and conducts at each site in areas with suitable habitat that listing may be warranted. The routine biological, chemical, and (primarily woody debris piles or information must contain evidence physical habitat assessments of aquatic submerged tree roots). The species was sufficient to suggest that these factors environments in order to assist with observed at 12 of 14 sites (the species may be operative threats that act on the conservation efforts (SAIC 2006, p. 1–5). was not observed at 2 sites in the Sugar species to the point that the species may Therefore, we find that the petition and Creek basin), and catch rates ranged meet the definition of a ‘‘threatened information readily available in our files from a low of 0.176 individuals per species:’’ or an ‘‘endangered species’’ do not provide substantial scientific or seine effort at Lax Creek to a high of under the Act. commercial information to indicate that 2.73 individuals per effort at Grindstone In making this 90-day finding we the present or threatened destruction, Creek. The Blood River crayfish was the evaluated whether information modification, or curtailment of the dominant crayfish at all sites, averaging regarding threats to the nine species that species’ habitat or range may present a 82.5 percent (range = 62.5 to 100 we consider listable entities (i.e., threat to Sarah’s hydroptila caddisfly percent) of all crayfish individuals at taxonomically valid and not considered such that the petitioned action may be each site. The species is currently listed extinct), as presented in the petition and warranted. as Threatened in Kentucky by KSNPC other information available in our files (KSNPC 2005), but this designation may is substantial, thereby indicating that Factor B. Overutilization for be modified based on the species’ listing any of the species in the Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or current abundance and discovery of petitioned action may be warranted. Our Educational Purposes new populations (Ryan Evans, KSNPC, evaluation of this information is The petition does not provide any pers. comm. 2008). presented below. The intensity of our information on this factor, and does not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62267

assert it is a threat. We have no Factor E. Other Naturalor Manmade assert it is a threat. We have no information in our files to indicate this Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued information in our files to indicate this is a threat. Therefore, we find that the Existence is a threat. Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily The petition does not provide any petition and information readily available in our files do not provide information on this factor, and does not available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or commercial assert it is a threat. We have no substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that information in our files to indicate this information to indicate that overutilization for commercial, is a threat. Therefore, we find that the overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational petition and information readily recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may present a threat to Sarah’s available in our files do not provide purposes may present a threat to the hydroptila caddisfly such that the substantial scientific or commercial Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly such petitioned action may be warranted. information to indicate that other that the petitioned action may be natural or manmade factors affecting the warranted. Factor C. Disease or Predation species’ continued existence may Factor C. Disease or Predation present a threat to Sarah’s hydroptila The petition does not provide any caddisfly such that the petitioned action The petition does not provide any information on this factor, and does not may be warranted. information on this factor, and does not assert it is a threat. We have no assert it is a threat. We have no information in our files to indicate this Rogue Creek Hydroptila Caddisfly information in our files to indicate this is a threat. Therefore, we find that the (Hydroptila okaloosa) is a threat. Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily Factor A. The Present or Threatened petition and information readily available in our files do not provide Destruction, Modification, or available in our files do not provide substantial scientific or commercial Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that disease or Range information to indicate that disease or predation may present a threat to predation may present a threat to the Information Provided in the Petition Sarah’s hydroptila caddisfly such that Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly such the petitioned action may be warranted. The petition (p. 611), citing that the petitioned action may be NatureServe (2008), states, ‘‘Because it warranted. Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing is dependent on clean water, this Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms caddisfly is threatened by any form of Regulatory Mechanisms Information Provided in the Petition pollution, siltation or degradation of surrounding habitat.’’ However, the Information Provided in the Petition petition fails to cite any specific The petition (p. 612) states, ‘‘It is The petition (p. 611) states that the instance of habitat degradation within unknown if it is appropriately protected species is found only on EAFB, and that the range of the Rogue Creek hydroptila from activities that would degrade water it is ‘‘unknown if it is appropriately caddisfly, or provide any information quality and eliminate the species.’’ protected from activities that would that the caddisfly is negatively affected degrade water quality and eliminate the Evaluation of Information Provided in by hatitat degredation. the Petition and Available in Service species.’’ Evaluation of Information Provided in Files Evaluation of Information Provided in Petition and Available in Service Files Petition and Available in Service Files We have no information in our files As with Sarah’s hydroptila caddisfly, indicating the species is threatened by we have no evidence in our files that We have no information in our files the inadequacy of existing regulatory this species is facing threats under this indicating the species is threatened by mechanisms. Water quality on EAFB is factor. This species is known from eight the inadequacy of existing regulatory protected in part through an approved locations on EAFB, all of which are mechanisms. The INRMP and Federal INRMP (SAIC 2010, pp. 7–55 through 7– managed under the installation’s INRMP and State water quality laws and 60). EAFB is also subject to the Federal (SAIC 2006). In addition, the Service regulations are protective of water Clean Water Act of 1972 and State water has partnered with EAFB and conducts quality, and the steepheads, spring runs, and creeks where this species occurs. quality regulations. The Service has routine biological, chemical, and EAFB’s overall ecosystem management partnered with EAFB and conducts physical habitat assessments of aquatic benefits the species. All mission routine biological, chemical, and environments in order to assist with conservation efforts (SAIC 2010, pp. 1– activities are required to avoid physical habitat assessments of aquatic disturbing wetlands, including the environments in order to assist with 5). Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily available in our creeks inhabited by this species. Water conservation efforts (SAIC 2010, pp. 1– quality on EAFB is also protected in 5). The protections in place through the files do not provide substantial scientific or commercial information to part through an approved INRMP (SAIC INRMP, Clean Water Act, and State indicate that the present or threatened 2006, pp. 7–55 through 7–60). EAFB is regulations appear to be adequately destruction, modification, or also subject to the Federal Clean Water protecing Sarah’s hydroptila caddisfly curtailment of the species’ habitat or Act of 1972 and State water quality from poor water quality. Therefore, we range may present a threat to the Rogue regulations. The Service has partnered find that the petition and information Creek hydroptila caddisfly such that the with EAFB and conducts routine readily available in our files do not petitioned action may be warranted. biological, chemical, and physical provide substantial scientific or habitat assessments of aquatic commercial information to indicate that Factor B. Overutilization for environments in order to assist with the inadequacy of existing regulatory Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or conservation efforts (SAIC 2006, pp. 1– mechanisms may present a threat to Educational Purposes 5). The protections in place through the Sarah’s hydroptila caddisfly such that The petition does not provide any INRMP, Clean Water Act, and State the petitioned action may be warranted. information on this factor, and does not regulations appear to be adequately

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 62268 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules

protecting the Rogue Creek hydroptila range may present a threat to the Florida quality regulations. The protections in caddisfly from poor water quality. brown checkered summer sedge such place through the INRMP, Clean Water Therefore, we find that the petition and that the petitioned action may be Act, and State regulations appear to be information readily available in our files warranted. adequately protecting the species from do not provide substantial scientific or poor water quality. Therefore, we find Factor B. Overutilization for commercial information to indicate that that the petition and information readily Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or the inadequacy of existing regulatory available in our files do not provide Educational Purposes mechanisms may present a threat to the substantial scientific or commercial Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly such The petition does not provide any information to indicate that the that the petitioned action may be information on this factor, and does not inadequacy of existing regulatory warranted. assert it is a threat. We have no mechanisms may present a threat to the information in our files to indicate this Florida brown checkered summer sedge Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade is a threat. Therefore, we find that the such that the petitioned action may be Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued petition and information readily warranted. Existence available in our files do not provide The petition does not provide any substantial scientific or commercial Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade information on this factor, and does not information to indicate that Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued assert it is a threat. We have no overutilization for commercial, Existence information in our files to indicate this recreational, scientific, or educational The petition does not provide any is a threat. Therefore, we find that the purposes may present a threat to the information on this factor, and does not petition and information readily Florida brown checkered summer sedge assert it is a threat. We have no available in our files do not provide such that the petitioned action may be information in our files to indicate this substantial scientific or commercial warranted. is a threat. Therefore, we find that the petition and information readily information to indicate that other Factor C. Disease or Predation natural or manmade factors affecting the available in our files do not provide species’ continued existence may The petition does not provide any substantial scientific or commercial present a threat to the Rogue Creek information on this factor, and does not information to indicate that other hydroptila caddisfly such that the assert it is a threat. We have no natural or manmade factors affecting the petitioned action may be warranted. information in our files to indicate this species’ continued existence may is a threat. Therefore, we find that the present a threat to the Florida brown Florida Brown Checkered Summer petition and information readily checkered summer sedge such that the Sedge (Polycentropus floridensis) available in our files do not provide petitioned action may be warranted. Factor A. The Present or Threatened substantial scientific or commercial Ouachita Creekshell (Villosa Destruction, Modification, or information to indicate that disease or arkansasensis) Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or predation may present a threat to the Range Florida brown checkered summer sedge Factor A. The Present or Threatened such that the petitioned action may be Destruction, Modification, or Information Provided in the Petition warranted. Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or The petition states according to Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Range NatureServe (2008), the habitat of this Regulatory Mechanisms species is ‘‘subject to pollution, Information Provided in the Petition siltation, and other forms of Information Provided in the Petition The petition (p. 1125) asserts that the environmental degradation.’’ However, The petition states that no existing species is threatened by habitat the Petition also notes, based on regulatory mechanisms protect this degradation and fragmentation in the Rasmussen et al. (2008) that the species species, and despite its stability on Glover River drainage (Vaughan 2003) is believed to be relatively stable ‘as EAFB, that issues of national security due to gravel , by proposed long as stream habitats supporting are prioritized over species protection. reservoirs (Galbraith et al. 2008), by populations on EAFB are protected.’’ siltation from forestry and agricultural Evaluation of Information Provided in activities, and from second home Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in Service development (Spooner and Vaughan the Petition and Available in Service Files 2007); and from ‘‘pollution from Files We have no information in our files municipal and industrial point sources, We have no information in our files that issues of national security are by recreation, development, nutrient that this species is facing threats under negatively affecting the species or will loading, confined animal feeding this factor. This species’ locations on do so in the foreseeable future. In operations, grazing, sedimentation, and EAFB are managed under the addition, water quality on EAFB is road construction’’ (Arkansas Game and installation’s INRMP (SAIC 2006). In protected in part through an approved Fish Commission 2005). The petition addition, the Service has partnered with INRMP (SAIC 2010, pp. 7–55 through 7– fails to identify any specific details EAFB and conducts routine biological, 60). The INRMP and Federal and State showing these potential threats actually chemical, and physical habitat water quality laws and regulations are affect the Ouachita creekshell, or assessments of aquatic environments in protective of water quality and the identify the significance of these threats order to assist with conservation efforts stream habitats where this species to the status of the Ouachita creekshell. (SAIC 2006, pp. 1–5). Therefore, we find occurs. EAFB’s overall ecosystem that the petition and information readily management benefits the species. All Evaluation of Information Provided in available in our files do not provide mission activities are required to avoid the Petition and Available in Service substantial scientific or commercial disturbing wetlands, including the Files information to indicate that the present creeks inhabited by this species. EAFB In 2007, the Service concluded a or threatened destruction, modification, is also subject to the Federal Clean status assessment of the Ouachita or curtailment of the species’ habitat or Water Act of 1972 and State water creekshell (Davidson 2007), in which

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62269

we assessed the status and threats based Ouachita is within Ouachita National information to indicate that disease or on the five listing factors. We concluded Forest. Therefore, populations of this predation may present a threat to the that an absence of comprehensive species are substantially protected from Ouachita creekshell such that the mussel surveys within the Ouachita and alteration from petitioned action may be warranted. creekshell historic range has resulted in sedimentation. Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing difficulty assessing long term The Service’s Partners for Fish and Regulatory Mechanisms population trends (Davidson 2007, p. Wildlife program (PFW) has identified 30). Limited information is available on priority watersheds in the Ouachita Information Provided in the Petition the species prior to the 1980s and prior Mountains for habitat restoration. The The petition (p. 1126) states, ‘‘There to most anthropogenic (human-caused) PFW has funded one project to enhance are no existing regulatory mechanisms impacts that may have affected riparian habitat on the Middle Fork that protect the Ouachita Creekshell.’’ populations when the area was Saline River. Other PFW projects are However, the petition fails to provide industrialized and urbanized. scattered throughout priority any substantial information detailing We further concluded in the watersheds (M. Tobin, USFWS, pers. the significance of this potential threat assessment that construction of 12 major Comm., 2006). Additionally, resource or how it may be acting on the species. and impoundments probably managers are teaming together to contributed to the historic decline of the develop strategies to restore mussel Evaluation of Information Provided in Ouachita creekshell as the species does populations in various watersheds. the Petition and Available in Service not occur in reservoirs lacking riverine These efforts have been largely focused Files characteristics and is unable to on the Upper Saline River watershed In contrast to the above statement in successfully reproduce and recruit (Ouachita River basin) in the Ouachita the petition, there are several regulatory under reservoir or tailwater conditions creekshell range. These strategies have mechanisms in place to protect the (Davidson 2007, pp. 31–32). We have no emphasized actions to aid in the Ouachita creekshell. The Arkansas information in our files indicating that restoration of mussel populations. Game and Fish Commission prohibits any new reservoirs are proposed or that In summary, the threats alleged in the taking of Ouachita creekshell without a the existing reservoirs currently threaten Petition are largely historical and not State collecting permit (Davidson 2007). the Ouachita creekshell. currently acting on the species or are The Clean Water Act prohibits water Similarly, the demise of the mussel not a threat of sufficient magnitude such quality degradation, and administration population in the lower Poteau River that they affect the species continued of this authority has improved over the system has been attributed, at least in existence. last several years in AR and OK part, to sedimentation and farming Factor B. Overutilization for (Davidson 2007). Hydropower Dams are chemicals (Davidson 2007, pp. 32–33). Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or regulated by the Federal Energy In the early 1990’s the upper Mountain Educational Purposes Regulatory Commission (FERC) under Fork and Glover Rivers may have been the Federal Power Act (FPA). The FPA impaired by clearcutting and conversion The petition does not provide any provides for cooperation between FERC of surrounding lands to pasture and information on this factor, and does not and other Federal and State agencies, confined animal feeding operations (R. assert it is a threat. Information in our including resource agencies, in Standage, U.S. Forest Service, pers. files (Davidson 2007, p. 36) indicates licensing and relicensing power comm. 2007). DeClerk et al. (2006) this species has never been valuable in projects, including the authority to alter assessed the threats and stressors to the the commercial pearl button or cultured flow regimes such that they might upper Saline River (Ouachita River pearl industry. Similarly, there is no reduce or avoid adverse effects to basin) headwaters and concluded that other information in our files that would stressors are likely to be localized and suggest overutilization for recreational, mussels downstream. Many Ouachita creekshell extant and moderately degrade aquatic biota and scientific or education purposes is a historical populations occur on public habitat over a portion of the watershed threat. Therefore, we find that the lands (e.g., Ouachita National Forest, if conditions remain unchanged over the petition and information readily State parks, and wildlife management next 10 years. Lastly, we concluded in available in our files do not provide areas). Approximately 85 percent of the the assessment that the impacts of substantial scientific or commercial Ouachita River basin upstream of Lake mining should be localized and have a information to indicate that Ouachita is within Ouachita National minimum effect on the species overutilization for commercial, Forest. Accordingly, populations of this rangewide (Davidson 2007, p. 33). recreational, scientific, or educational species are substantially protected from Sedimentation, including siltation, purposes may present a threat to the habitat destruction and alteration. resulting from such activities as grazing, Ouachita creekshell such that the Therefore, we find that the petition and home development, and road petitioned action may be warranted. construction is a pervasive problem information readily available in our files across the United States, including the Factor C. Disease or Predation do not provide substantial scientific or range of the Ouachita creekshell. As the The petition does not provide any commercial information to indicate that Ouachita creekshell relies on visual- information on this factor, and does not disease or predation may present a feeding host fishes for reproduction, assert it is a threat. Information in our threat to the Ouachita creekshell such clear silt-free water is essential for files indicates that there are several that the petitioned action may be successful recruitment. However, use of natural predators of mussels, including warranted. best management practices, which in the muskrat, raccoon, mink, otter, hogs, Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade some cases are mandatory and others turtles and aquatic birds. However, Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued voluntary, significantly reduces threats from these species are not Existence sediment and erosion from construction currently deemed significant (Davidson and development, timber, and 2007, p. 37). Therefore, we find that the Information Provided in the Petition agricultural practices. Additionally, petition and information readily The petition (p. 1126), citing Harris et approximately 85 percent of the available in our files do not provide al. (1997) states that zebra mussel Ouachita River basin upstream of Lake substantial scientific or commercial (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion is a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 62270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules

threat to the native mussels of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission abundant throughout the Mississippi Arkansas and White Rivers. However, it (AGFC) 2005 as cited in the Petition, pp. River system. does not provide any specific 285–286), dams and impoundments While habitat modification and information on the significance of the (Boschung & Mayden 2004, NatureServe destruction have occurred in the past, threat or extent of the invasion into 2008, and AGFC 2005, as cited in the the Petition fails to present new Ouachita creekshell habitat. Petition, p. 286), and mountaintop substantial information that this factor Evaluation of Information Provided in removal coal mining (Boschung & continues to affect the crystal darter or the Petition and Available in Service Mayden 2004, Wood 2009, and Wood would in the future. Similarly, while Files and Raley 2000 as referenced in the , dams, stripmining, and Petition, p. 286). Davidson (2007, pp. 38–39) evaluated mountaintop mining represent the existing threats to the Ouachita Evaluation of Information Provided in generalized threats to the species as creekshell using the five listing factors the Petition and Available in Service stated in the Petition as well as in our and, while he discusses the exotic Asian Files own status assessment (2009), neither clam as firmly entrenched in the the Petition nor information in our files In the Service’s crystal darter status present substantial information Ouachita creekshell range, he also finds assessment (2009), we acknowledge that that the Asian clam may not cause detailing the significance of these extensive human disturbance over the threats to the species. Therefore, we find native mussels in dense beds to decline past 100 years has contributed to the when it invades their habitat. Davidson that the petition and information readily extirpation of the crystal darter from available in our files do not provide (2007) does not mention the zebra portions of its former range including mussel as a possible threat. As noted substantial scientific or commercial Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, information to indicate that the present previously, phylogenetic analysis Kentucky, and Iowa (Etnier and Starnes suggests that Ouachita creekshell or threatened destruction, modification, 1993 as reported in FWS 2009). It has or curtailment of the species’ habitat or () may be the same long been recognized that siltation alters species as the southern hickorynut range may present a threat to the crystal aquatic habitats by reducing light mussel, considerably increasing the darter such that the petitioned action penetration, changing heat radiation, range and population numbers of the may be warranted. covering the stream bottom, and Ouachita creekshell. Therefore, we find retaining organic material and other Factor B. Overutilization for that the petition and information readily debris (Ellis 1936). This translates into Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or available in our files do not provide the disruption of reproductive behavior Educational Purposes substantial scientific or commercial and alteration of food resources utilized information to indicate that other Information Provided in the Petition by stream fish communities (Ellis 1936). natural or manmade factors affecting the species’ continued existence may The crystal darter was broadly The petition does not provide any present a threat to the Ouachita distributed in tributaries of the Ohio information on this factor, and does not creekshell such that the petitioned River until high silt loading and the assert it is a threat. subsequent smothering of sandy action may be warranted. Evaluation of Information Provided in substrates occurred (Trautman 1981). the Petition and Available in Service Crystal darter (Crystallaria asprella) Impoundment and channelization were Files Factor A. The Present or Threatened thought to have caused the extirpation Destruction, Modification, or of crystal darter populations from the Although the crystal darter has no Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or Tombigbee River, a part of the Mobile commercial value, live specimens may Range River system (Stewart 1992). According be collected for the aquarium trade to Etnier and Starnes (1993), as reported (Walsh et al. 2003). However, Schmidt Information Provided in the Petition in FWS (2009), impoundments at Lake (2003) asserted that current The petition (p. 286), citing numerous Cumberland, Cordell Hull, and Dale inefficiencies in collection techniques sources, states that habitat destruction is Hollow reservoirs in Tennessee have preclude overutilization from becoming a primary threat to the crystal darter. On caused the apparent extirpation of the a major threat to crystal darter page 286 the Petition states, ‘‘The crystal darter by altering big-river populations. Inadvertent collection of crystal darter now occurs as declining, habitat in the region. Schmidt (1995) crystal darters while sampling for other fragmented populations that are highly lists dredging for commercial navigation fish species could occur, but is unlikely vulnerable to extirpation from habitat as the greatest threat to crystal darter considering the low encounter rate for loss and degradation.’’ NatureServe populations in the . On this species. Therefore, we find that the (2008) reports that this fish is threatened the other hand, Schmidt (1995) also petition and information readily by ‘‘siltation and other forms of notes that collections made in a pool available in our files do not provide pollution from urbanization, strip- designated as a dredge disposal site may substantial scientific or commercial mining, logging, natural gas exploration, provide suitable substrates to information to indicate that and improper agricultural practices, as accommodate the crystal darter’s overutilization for commercial, well as stream alteration projects, such burying behavior. The positive and recreational, scientific, or educational as damming, dredging, and negative impacts have yet to be fully purposes may present a threat to the channelization.’’ Dredging for sorted out. Hatch (1998) suggests that crystal darter such that the petitioned navigation is believed to be a major the rarity of crystal darters in the Upper action may be warranted. threat in the upper Mississippi River Mississippi River could be a result of system. the velocity reduction and particle Factor C. Disease or Predation Reasons outlined for habitat loss deposition associated with navigation Information Provided in the Petition include siltation and other water-quality controls. However, Schmidt (1995) concerns in streams and rivers notes that crystal darters have been The petition does not provide any (Boschung and Mayden 2004, repeatedly detected in association with information on this factor, and does not NatureServe 2008, Jelks et al. 2008, wing structures, which are assert it is a threat.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62271

Evaluation of Information Provided in river, making it a solid mass of live that they might reduce or avoid adverse the Petition and Available in Service zebra mussels or their shells. Crystal effects to aquatic biota downstream. Files darters prefer stable sand gravel bars in Sedimentation and siltation from Viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) is fast-flowing reaches, where zebra construction, development, and timber an infectious disease of fish that was mussels are not as abundant. It is, practices are effectively minimized and diagnosed in 2005 in fish in the Great therefore, unlikely that zebra mussels or avoided through the implementation Lakes, and was confirmed as the cause will have a significant direct impact on of best management practices, which are of fish kills in Lakes Huron, St. Clair, these kinds of habitats. We have no variably required or voluntary in nature. Erie, and Ontario and the St. Lawrence information to indicate they represent a Therefore, we find that the petition and threat to the crystal darter at this time. River in 2005 and 2006. VHS was information readily available in our files Therefore, we find that the petition detected for the first time in 2007 in fish do not provide substantial scientific or and information readily available in our commercial information to indicate that from Wisconsin waters, and fish files do not provide substantial biologists believe the virus may soon be inadequacy of existing regulatory scientific or commercial information to mechanisms is a threat to the crystal in fish from the upper Mississippi River indicate that disease or predation may and their tributaries or may already be darter such that the petitioned action present a threat to the crystal darter may be warranted. present. such that the petitioned action may be The Great Lakes strain of VHS is warranted. Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade genetically different than the strains Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued from Europe and the Pacific Northwest, Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Existence in that it seems to affect a wider range Regulatory Mechanisms Information Provided in the Petition of freshwater species over a broader The petition (p. 286) states that ‘‘no range of water temperatures. Some existing regulatory mechanisms The petition (p. 286), citing Bauer and percid (perch) species are known to be adequately protect this species or its Clemmer (1983) and NatureServe susceptible to VHS; however, it has habitat,’’ and citing NatureServe (2008) (2008), states that the species could be been noted only in the sport fish, and explains that few populations are affected by the introduction of no darters have been reported with VHS ‘‘appropriately managed and protected.’’ nonnative fish species, and across its so far. NatureServe (2008) reports that few range is threatened by water pollution Natural predation by piscivorous fish (1 to 3) occurrences of this species are from a variety of sources. However, no and wildlife likely occurs (Page 1983). appropriately protected and managed, specific evidence of these threats, or of Newly introduced species may act as stating: ‘‘At least one site is known to the crystal darter’s response to them, is predators and/or competitors of native be protected, the lower Bayou Pierre given. The Petition (p. 286), citing fish, including the varieties of complex in Claiborne and Copiah NatureServe 2008, also claims that the nonnative, invasive Asian carp now Counties, Mississippi. For the most part, crystal darter is ‘‘vulnerable to occurring and reproducing in the the species is protected from harvest, stochastic genetic and environmental Mississippi River and some of its but generally there is no protection from events because of its distribution in tributaries, including the grass carp, upstream siltation or pollution sources. localized populations.’’ silver carp, bighead carp, and black carp. Asian carp are becoming abundant Evaluation of Information Provided in Evaluation of Information Provided in and persistent residents of the lower the Petition and Available in Service the Petition and Available in Service reaches of the Upper Mississippi River Files Files System (UMRS; Koel et al. 2000). In contrast to the above statement in We have no specific information on However, we have no information that the Petition, there are a number of the crystal darter’s response to various Asian carp are adversely affecting the regulatory mechanisms in place to introduced nonnative fish species or to crystal darter. protect the crystal darter. In 11 of the 15 the general threat of water pollution. Gobies are another invasive fish States where the species is known to However, Alabama established a rule in species that could adversely affect occur, the crystal darter receives special 2003 that makes it unlawful to crystal darter. As a benthic species, they designated protective status as a species intentionally stock or release any fish, might compete with darters for food and of concern, threatened or endangered mussel, snail, crayfish or their embryos, space, and their high reproductive rate within the State. While the specific including baitfish, into the public could overwhelm the natural designation in each State provides waters of Alabama under the recruitment of the crystal darter. slightly different protections, they jurisdiction of the Division of Wildlife However, at this time gobies appear to generally protect the species from direct and Freshwater Fisheries. This rule, if be restricted to the Great Lakes. Whether harm, but do not protect its habitat. enforced, could bolster protection of gobies would occur in the swift waters However, habitat protections across the crystal darters and other imperiled preferred by the crystal darter is not range of the species are provided biota. known. through section 404 of the Clean Water We next considered information in The zebra mussel has invaded the Act. The Clean Water Act prohibits our files concerning other potential Mississippi River and can be quite water-quality degradation, and Factor E threats to the crystal darter. abundant at certain locations. When administration of this authority has Loss of genetic variation through abundant, zebra mussels can improved over the last several years in population bottlenecks, genetic drift, significantly alter the water quality of AR and OK (Davidson 2007). and inbreeding can result in increased the river by filtering out the food in the Hydropower dams are regulated by homozygosity (sameness of genes), loss water column that larval fish and other FERC under the FPA. The FPA provides of additive variance, and increased organisms depend on. They can also for cooperation between FERC and other expression of deleterious recessive deplete the river of oxygen, both while Federal and state agencies, including alleles (Meffe 1986). Through these alive (for respiration) or once dead (from resource agencies, in licensing and processes, loss of genetic variance leads decomposition). They can completely relicensing power projects, including to a decrease in fitness. Small and alter the structure of the bottom of the the authority to alter flow regimes such increasingly isolated crystal darter

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 62272 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules

populations may continue to suffer from crystal darter. Further, we did not find intact (i.e., heavily forested) decreasing within-population diversity evidence of potential loss of other composition of some watersheds helps as inbreeding among close relatives, genetically unique and important ameliorate the effects of activities that which can lead to problems such as populations of the crystal darter that degrade local stream quality (e.g., in the reduced fertility and fitness, increases could pose a Factor E threat. Therefore, Allegheny River watershed). Overall, in likelihood (Noss and Cooperrider we find that the petition and the best available information does not 1994). Similarly, the random loss of information readily available in our files indicate that the present or threatened adaptive genes through genetic drift do not provide substantial scientific or destruction, modification, or may function to limit the ability of commercial information to indicate that curtailment of the spotted darter’s crystal darters to respond to changes in other natural or manmade factors habitat or range is a significant threat or their environment (Noss and affecting the species’ continued that it will cause substantial losses of Cooperrider 1994). Small population existence may present a threat to the population distribution or viability in sizes and inhibited gene flow between crystal darter such that the petitioned all or a significant portion of the species action may be warranted. crystal darter populations caused by range. Therefore, we find that the may increase the Spotted darter (Etheostoma petition and information readily likelihood of (Gilpin maculatum) available in our files do not provide and Soule´ 1986). Unique genetic lines Factor A. The Present or Threatened substantial scientific or commercial such as those from the Elk River information to indicate that the present population in West Virginia (Wood and Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or or threatened destruction, modification, Raley 2000) are of great importance for or curtailment of the species’ habitat or the long-term goals of maintaining Range range may present a threat to the spotted genetic diversity and allowing future Information Provided in the Petition darter such that the petitioned action adaptation to changing conditions may be warranted. (Meffe 1986). These unique gene pools The petition asserts that the spotted darter is threatened by sedimentation, allow for the maintenance of between- Factor B. Overutilization for impoundments, and stream population variance and can be sources Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or of genetic stock for future management channelization (Mayasich et al. 2004, Simon 2005, as cited in Petition, p. 435). Educational Purposes efforts (Meffe 1986) and adaptive Citing Simon 2005, the Petition (p. 435) potential in response to environmental Information Provided in the Petition states that the species faces specific change (Meffe 1987). water-quality threats in many States, The petition does not provide any Morrison et al. (2006) compared the including Kentucky, New York, Ohio, information on this factor, and does not genetic variation of the disjunct Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The assert it is a threat. populations of the crystal darter from Petition (p. 435, citing various sources) the Upper Mississippi River (Zumbro asserts that the species is threatened by Evaluation of Information Provided in River, Minnesota), Lower Mississippi water pollution stemming from the Petition and Available in Service River (Saline River, Arkansas), Gulf ‘‘mountaintop removal’’ coal mining in Files Coast drainages (Pearl River, Louisiana West Virginia. and Cahaba River, Alabama), and the We have no information to indicate Ohio River Basin (Elk River, West Evaluation of Information Provided in that overutilization of spotted darters for Virginia). She compared the populations the Petition and Available in Service commercial, recreational, scientific, or genetically using two different genetic Files educational purposes is a threat to systems and compared that to previous Although few quantitative data have spotted darters. Therefore, we find that genetic studies of Wood and Raley been gathered directly linking the the petition and information readily (2000). She also compared the effects of sedimentation, impoundment, available in our files do not provide populations morphometrically (by body chemical water quality, and other substantial scientific or commercial physical characteristics) and determined habitat modifications on spotted darter information to indicate that that the four populations are distinctly declines, the best available information overutilization for commercial, different. Based on her analysis, she strongly suggests that these factors recreational, scientific, or educational concluded that the Elk River population resulted in historical extirpations of purposes may present a threat to the constituted a distinct species. Welsh some populations (e.g., Mahoning River, spotted darter such that the petitioned and Wood (2008) confirmed the Deer Creek, North Fork Kentucky River) action may be warranted. uniqueness of the Elk River population and are a contributing factor in recent Factor C. Disease or Predation and subsequently described that declines in parts of the range (e.g., population of Crystallaria as Tippecanoe River, Barren River system). Information Provided in the Petition Crystallaria cincotta, the diamond These threats, however, have not been darter. They concluded the Elk River linked to recent widespread declines The petition (pp. 435–436), citing population to be the only extant throughout the range of the species. The various sources, states that predation population of this species and that the effects of environmental legislation such from domestic and introduced predatory small size of the population makes it as the Clean Water Act and Surface fishes following impoundment quite vulnerable to local . mining Control and Reclamation Act construction, as well as the introduction The Service has elevated the diamond (SMCRA), and conservation programs and spread of the exotic invasive fish darter to candidate status (75 FR 69222). including the Conservation Reserve the round goby (Neogobius So while we previously thought that Program and Conservation Reserve melanostomus), threaten the spotted loss of genetic variation represented by Enhancement Program have contributed darter. However, the petition does not the Elk River population might pose a to improvements in water quality and provide information demonstrating potential threat to the crystal darter, we habitat quality in many stream systems predation impacts to the spotted darter now realize that this population is, in with remaining extant populations of and how it may affect the species’ fact, a different species, and not the the species. In addition, the relatively status.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62273

Evaluation of Information Provided in possession, sale, transportation, or Climate change is expected to result the Petition and Available in Service killing of listed species. The New York in rising average temperatures Files law also prohibits any alteration of throughout the range of the spotted We have no information in our files occupied habitat that is likely to darter and altered precipitation patterns, that suggests or identifies predation as negatively affect one or more essential likely resulting in elevated stream a threat to spotted darter. Some natural behaviors of such species (6 NYCRR, temperature regimes and lower summer predation by piscivorous fish and part 182). Except for in New York, State base-flows (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 107, wildlife occurs (Page 1983, p. 172). threatened and endangered species laws 111–112, 117–120). Higher stream Commonly reported parasites of darters do not address the primary threat to temperatures may result in reduced include metacercarial trematodes (black- spotted darters: The present or reproductive success, and low base spot disease) flukes, nematodes, leeches, threatened destruction, modification, or flows favor more tolerant stream fishes. spiny-headed worms, and copepods curtailment of its habitat or range. Migration of spotted darters as an (Page 1983, p. 173), but none of these In summary, existing regulatory adaptation to climate changes is are a significant threat to the spotted mechanisms, including the Clean Water unlikely, due to their limited mobility, darter. Therefore, we find that the Act and State endangered species restriction to defined stream systems, petition and information readily regulaitons provide some protection to and extensive impoundment throughout available in our files do not provide spotted darters. The Petition did not the Ohio River basin. According to the substantial scientific or commercial present more specific information as to NatureServe Climate Change information to indicate that disease or the nature of the threats that require Vulnerability Index, release 2.01, predation may present a threat to the additional regulation, and we have no spotted darters are considered spotted darter such that the petitioned additional information in our files. moderately vulnerable to climate action may be warranted. Therefore, we find that the petition and change, which means their abundance information readily available in our files and/or range extent are likely to Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing decrease by 2050 (Applegate 2010). Regulatory Mechanisms do not provide substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that Specific impacts to spotted darters Information Provided in the Petition the inadequacy of existing regulatory resulting from climate change are not clear. The petition states that, ‘‘A portion of mechanisms may present a threat to the spotted darter populations occur in spotted darter such that the petitioned In summary, both limited genetic streams on the Hoosier and Allegheny action may be warranted. variation and the effects of climate change are potential future threats to National Forests, where they are listed Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade as sensitive species (Simon 2005). This spotted darter. However, the Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued information provided by the Petition designation, however, does not provide Existence protection for the spotted darter’s and readily available in our files is not habitat. Instead, it requires the Forest Information Provided in the Petition adequate to determine specific impacts Service to consider the impacts of their to the species, or to identify either as a The petition cites NatureServe (2008) actions on the darter, but not to choose significant threat affecting the species that ‘‘Remaining populations of spotted a benign alternative or to stop a project viability. Therefore, we find that the darter are small and isolated and because of impacts to the species. petition and information readily therefore vulnerable to stochastic Likewise, the darter is listed as available in our files do not provide extinction, inbreeding depression, and endangered or threatened in several substantial scientific or commercial other perils that face small populations states, but these designations do not information to indicate that other with low genetic diversity.’’ provide regulatory protection for the natural or manmade factors affecting the darter’s habitat.’’ The Petition provides Evaluation of Information Provided in species’ continued existence may no specific information indicating what the Petition and Available in Service present a threat to the spotted darter threats require adequate regulation by Files such that the petitioned action may be the U.S. Forest Service or the States. warranted. A few spotted darter populations Florida Bog frog (Rana okaloosae) Evaluation of Information Provided in appear to be small and isolated. the Petition and Available in Service Individuals in small populations are Factor A. The Present or Threatened Files more likely to suffer from decreased Destruction, Modification, or While a U.S. Forest Service fitness (i.e., ability to produce viable Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or designation as a sensitive species does offspring) as inbreeding among close Range not by itself provide habitat protections, relatives occurs and results in greater Information Provided in the Petition the U.S. Forest Service is held to the expression of deleterious recessive same Clean Water Act section 404 genes (Allendorf and Luikart 2007, pp. The Petition states: ‘‘The greatest requirements as a private entity as well 306, 315). Genetic drift (i.e., random threats to the Florida Bog Frog are as additional guidelines per the Forest change in gene frequencies) is also more stream impoundment and habitat Service’s Land and Resource likely to result in reduced genetic succession (Molar 1992). This frog is Management Plans. diversity in small populations, which particularly vulnerable to habitat Except for West Virginia, all States may cause loss of genes that could allow destruction and modification because of within the range of the spotted darter the population to adapt to its limited range and habitat specificity have legislation that provides environmental change. These factors (NatureServe 2008). This species’ protections for rare animal species. The can increase the likelihood of habitat has been degraded by improper spotted darter is on the State list of extirpation (Allendorf and Luikart 2007, watershed management, siltation protected species in New York, p. 355). The specific effects of genetic stemming from poor road placement, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Of these three, isolation on population dynamics in and poor forest management in only the New York law extends extant spotted darter populations, surrounding uplands (Molar 1992, protection beyond prohibiting the however, are not clear. NatureServe 2008).’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 62274 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules

The petition continues ‘‘Enge (2005) management in surrounding uplands].’’ Factor B. Overutilization for cites logging, groundwater use, siltation Further, since EAFB contains upwards Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or from dirt roads and cleared lands, of 90 percent of the known range and at Educational Purposes impoundment, and poor management of least 95 percent of the known sites for Information Provided in the Petition adjacent upland habitat as threats to this species, many of the threats are species in ravine habitats in most appropriately applied to the 5 The petition states: ‘‘Amphibians are the Florida Panhandle, including R. percent of sites remaining that are in collected from the wild for use as food, okaloosae. The Florida Fish and private ownership, as habitat pets, and for the biological and Wildlife Conservation Commission management activities specific to the medicinal supply markets (2009) cites threats to the Bog Frog as (AmphibiaWeb 2009: http:// Florida bog frog have been ongoing on siltation, pollution, and excess surface amphibiaweb.org/declines/ EAFB for approximately 5 years. runoff where roads cross slopes above exploitation.html). Dodd (1997) states: streams, damming, and altered fire Monitoring and management ‘‘Collecting specimens for the pet trade regime which allows hardwood activities are laid out in the Draft or biological laboratories probably has succession along streams (http:// Threatened and Endangered Species had some impact on local (Southeast) www.fwc.state.fl.us/docs/FWCG/ Component Plan (EAFB 2006, pp. 12–20 amphibian populations, but few data are florida_bog_frog.pdf). The Commission to 12–24) guided by the available’’ (p. 183).’’ cites altered fire regime, altered recommendations of the Florida Bog Evaluation of Information Provided in hydrologic regime, groundwater Frog Management Plan (Jackson 2004), withdrawal, surface water diversion, the Petition and Available in Service and an Integrated Natural Resources Files and altered community structure as Management Plan (EAFB 2010). The threats to the Bog Frog’s habitat Draft Threatened and Endangered While we agree that amphibian (http://myfwc.com/docs/ Species Component Plan (2006) lays out collection in the southeastern United WildlifeHabitats/ States is a potential threat to _ _ a comprehensive strategy to monitor Legacy Shrub .pdf). The Florida and manage the species on EAFB amphibians, it is unlikely that this Dept. of Environmental Protection lists including 100 percent resurvey of species would receive substantial the Florida Bog Frog as occurring at collection pressure as 90 percent of the known sites, resample of 25 percent of Rocky Bayou State Park where its known range is located on EAFB, and previously visited sites, and survey of habitat is threatened by potential loss of access to the Base is restricted. submerged and emergent vegetation due 20 new sites annually. Management for Therefore, we find that the petition and to increased residential housing along the bog frog includes prescribed information readily available in our files the preserve boundary, and by high use burning, invasive species control, and do not provide substantial scientific or of the preserve as a water skiing area erosion control not only at known bog commercial information to indicate that which may have an impact on the frog sites, but also throughout entire the overutilization for commercial, natural submerged and emergent Conservation Management Units, as recreational, scientific, or educational vegetation. There are also recurring necessary (EAFB 2006, pp. 12–21 to purposes may present a threat to the issues with high bacteria counts in the 12–22). Florida bog frog such that the petitioned preserve waters adjacent to the state In addition the State of Florida (2006) action may be warranted. park (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/ acquired substantial acreage located Factor C. Disease or Predation sites/rocky/info.htm).’’ between EAFB and Evaluation of Information Provided in State Forest, which is intended to help Information Provided in the Petition the Petition and Available in Service protect the areas upstream of and The petition states, ‘‘New diseases Files located outside of EAFB. Based on the and increased susceptibility of Based on the information in our files, existing management and protection of amphibians to existing diseases are we disagree with the interpretation of these areas, the threats cited in the known to be contributing to the decline the information in the sources cited in Petition have been largely alleviated. of amphibian species (Blaustein et al. the Petition. For instance, while the The persistence of the Florida bog frog 1994, Laurance et al. 1996, Berger et al. Petition states that, ‘‘This frog is is tied strongly to management actions 1998, Daszak 2000, Kiesecker et al. particularly vulnerable to habitat on the base. Although funding for 2001, reviewed in AmphibiaWeb 2009, destruction and modification because of management of State-listed species is http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ its limited range and habitat specificity not mandatory, EAFB provides diseases.html). Stress from factors such (NatureServe 2008).’’ NatureServe beneficial management actions for the as habitat loss and fragmentation, (2008) also states that ‘‘many to very Florida bog frog while managing for chemical pollution, climate change, many occurrences are appropriately overall ecosystem health and Federally invasion of exotic species, increased protected and managed.’’ Additionally, listed species (EAFB 2006). Therefore, UV–B radiation, and natural population fluctuations may increase the the Petition’s claim that ‘‘This species’ we find that the petition and habitat has been degraded by improper susceptibility of amphibians to disease information readily available in our files watershed management, siltation (Carey 1993, Dodd 1997, Fellers et al. do not provide substantial scientific or stemming from poor road placement, 2001, Kiesecker at al. 2001, and poor forest management in commercial information to indicate that AmphibiaWeb 2009). Pathogens known surrounding uplands (Molar 1992, the present or threatened destruction, to cause infectious disease in NatureServe 2008),’’ is qualified by modification, or curtailment of the amphibians include bacterial, fungal, NatureServe (2008) based on Molar species’ habitat or range may present a viral, metazoan, water mold, and (1992) stating that frog populations are threat to the Florida bog frog such that trematode agents (Wright and Whitaker ‘‘often not negatively affected by this the petitioned action may be warranted. 2001 in AmphibiaWeb 2009). [meaning * * * improper watershed Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus, management, siltation stemming from Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) has poor road placement, and poor forest had severe impacts on amphibian

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62275

populations worldwide. Chytrid fungus Florida bog frog such that the petitioned chemical stressors are known to is known to be present in the action may be warranted. negatively affect amphibians including southeastern United States heavy metals, pesticides, phenols, Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade (AmphibiaWeb 2009) and potentially carbon tetrachloride, nitrogen based Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued threatens the Florida bog frog. In fertilizers, and road salt (Dodd 1997, Existence addition to disease, there has been a AmphibiaWeb 2009). The presence of widespread increase of amphibian Information Provided in the Petition toxins can also make amphibians more deformities and malformations (http:// The petition states: ‘‘Dodd (1997) lists susceptible to disease (Dodd 1997). amphibiaweb.org/declines/ rarity as a potential threat to the Florida Amphibians are also threatened by deformities.html).’’ Bog Frog. Rana okaloosae is potentially endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment (Hayes et al. 2006). Dodd threatened by hybridization with R. Evaluation of Information Provided in (1997) states: ‘‘Amphibians are likely to clamitans clamitans (Gorman et al. the Petition and Available in Service be especially sensitive to the action of 2009). Enge (2005) cites water pollution, Files endocrine mimics because they are in recreation, and trash dumping as threats close direct contact with chemicals in The petition, while identifying to amphibians in the Florida Panhandle. their environment, and the amphibian potential threats to amphibians in the The Florida Wildlife Conservation skin and egg capsule are highly Southeast under this factor, does not Commission cites water pollution and permeable. Because hormones normally cite to any specific known threat to the invasive species as threats to the Bog function in minute quantities and are Florida bog frog, and we have no Frog (http://myfwc.com/docs/ vital to normal development, information in our files to indicate that WildlifeHabitats/ disease or predation are presently _ _ susceptibility to xenobiotics could be Legacy Shrub Swamp.pdf). Enge (2005) devastating during the complex changes affecting the species. Therefore, we find cites feral hogs as a threat to amphibians that the petition and information readily that occur during hormonally-induced in the Florida Panhandle. amphibian metamorphosis (p. 182).’’ available in our files do not provide The petition continues ‘‘Other factors substantial scientific or commercial Toxins and other chemicals can also which threaten imperiled amphibian harm amphibians by reducing food information to indicate that disease or populations in the Southeast include predation may present a threat to the availability. Dodd (1997) states: ‘‘If water pollution from acidification, species that are preyed upon by Florida bog frog such that the petitioned toxins, and endocrine disrupting action may be warranted. amphibians decline or disappear, chemicals, reduced prey availability, amphibian populations may be expected Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing climate change, UV–B radiation, to follow suit. The use of pesticides and Regulatory Mechanisms invasive species, and synergistic effects the influence of toxics, pH, and habitat from these and other threats. Information Provided in the Petition alteration may be expected to affect Acidification of soils and water bodies amphibian prey populations (p. 184).’’ The petition states: ‘‘The Florida Bog is detrimental for amphibians. The petition continues ‘‘Climate Frog is considered a Species of Special Acidification of amphibian habitat can change poses a threat for amphibians Concern in Florida, but this designation result from acid precipitation and from because it will alter rainfall and does not provide any regulatory acid mine drainage. Acid disrupts ion temperature patterns and affect soil protection for its declining habitat. balance in both terrestrial and aquatic moisture (Dodd 1997, Field et al. 2007). Approximately 90 percent of the total life stages of amphibians, impairs Amphibians are particularly sensitive to range may be within Eglin Air Force chemosensory reception, and inhibits minute changes in moisture and Base, but national security concerns larval feeding (Dodd 1997). Embryos temperature, and changes in climate can take precedence over wildlife and larvae are particularly sensitive to affect breeding behavior, reproductive management (NatureServe 2008).’’ decreased pH. success, and immune function (see Terrestrial avoid Evaluation of Information Provided in http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ acidified soils. Acidification also has ClimateChange.html). Amphibians the Petition and Available in Service indirect effects which can kill embryos, Files which breed in temporary ponds or in larvae, and adults by interfering with water bodies that are sensitive to Based on the continued and egg development, disrupting trophic changes in groundwater level are comprehensive management of the interactions, and inducing chronic particularly susceptible to climate Florida bog frog for the last several years environmental stress. Low pH also change effects. Drought can lead to on EAFB, the species is being makes amphibians more susceptible to localized extirpation, which combined adequately protected and managed deleterious effects from heavy metals with habitat fragmentation and impaired throughout approximately 90 percent of and increased UV–B radiation (Dodd dispersal, can contribute to extinction its range. In addition, State efforts have 1997).’’ (Dodd 1997). During the past few furthered the protection of the The petition further states that decades, levels of UV–B radiation in the remaining three sites located outside of ‘‘Environmental toxins pose a threat to atmosphere have significantly EAFB. We have no information in our amphibians in the Southeast due to increased. For amphibians, UV–B files, nor has any specific information lethal and sub-lethal effects which can radiation can cause direct mortality as been provided in the Petition, to include mortality, decreased growth well as sublethal effects including support that national security is rate, behavioral and developmental decreased hatching success, decreased affecting or limiting the management of abnormalities, lowered reproductive growth rate, developmental this species. Therefore, we find that the success, weakened immunity, and abnormalities, and immune dysfunction petition and information readily hermaphroditism (see http:// (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009: available in our files do not provide amphibiaweb.org/declines/ http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ substantial scientific or commercial ChemCon.html). Amphibians are UVB.html). information to indicate that the particularly vulnerable to toxic Southeastern amphibians are also inadequacy of existing regulatory substances because of the permeable threatened by the invasion of nonnative mechanisms may present a threat to the nature of their skin. A wide range of species which prey on or compete with

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 62276 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules

native amphibians. Nonnative fishes can radiation, endocrine-disrupting or threatened destruction, modification, negatively affect amphibian populations chemicals, reduced prey availability, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or through predation, competition, and climate change, and drought have not range may present a threat to the disease introduction. Introduced been reported as problems for this Greensboro burrowing crayfish such nonnative amphibians such as the species. We have no specific evidence, that the petitioned action may be marine toad (Bufo marinus) and Cuban nor does the Petition provide any, that warranted. tree frog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) are any of these factors are affecting Factor B. Overutilization for potentially harmful for native populations of the Florida bog frog. Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or amphibians in the Southeast. Rossi Therefore, we find that the petition and Educational Purposes (1981) found that anuran species information readily available in our files richness was reduced in an area where do not provide substantial scientific or The petition does not provide any B. marinus was established (in Dodd commercial information to indicate that information on this factor, and does not 1997). Introduced mammals, such as other natural or manmade factors assert it is a threat. We have no armadillos and wild hogs, and affecting the species’ continued information in our files to indicate this introduced birds like cattle egrets ‘‘may existence may present a threat to the is a threat. Therefore, we find that the exact a substantial toll on amphibian Florida bog frog such that the petitioned petition and information readily populations’’ (Dodd 1997). Invasive fire action may be warranted. available in our files do not provide ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also a substantial scientific or commercial Greensboro Burrowing Crayfish potential threat for Southeastern information to indicate that (Cambarus catagius) amphibians. Dodd (1997) states: overutilization for commercial, ‘‘Ground dwelling vertebrates are Factor A. The Present or Threatened recreational, scientific, or educational especially sensitive to this ravenous Destruction, Modification, or purposes may present a threat to predator, and fire ants have been Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or Greensboro burrowing crayfish such reported to kill endangered Houston Range that the petitioned action may be toads (Bufo houstonensis) as they warranted. Information Provided in the Petition metamorphose. Fire ants are especially Factor C. Disease or Predation abundant in the moist perimeter The petition (p. 170) states surrounding ponds and lakes, and they ‘‘Cambarus catagius occurs in Abbotts The petition does not provide any can float in mats across ponds from Creek and Pounders Fork which flow information on this factor, and does not vegetation clump to vegetation clump. into High Rock Reservoir. Both streams assert it is a threat. We have no Fire ants have few predators and have are part of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River information in our files to indicate this expanded their range throughout the Drainage that is impounded by dams of is a threat. Therefore, we find that the Southeast’’ (p. 183). See: http:// , Inc. The on- petition and information readily amphibiaweb.org/declines/IntroSp.html. going effects of these impoundments are available in our files do not provide Synergisms between multiple threats unknown.’’ The petition also states that substantial scientific or commercial could contribute to the extinction of the known range of this species is information to indicate that disease or Southeast amphibians. Multiple factors restricted and affected by urban predation may present a threat to acting together have both lethal and development, based on McGrath (1994). Greensboro burrowing crayfish such sublethal effects (http:// that the petitioned action may be Evaluation of Information Provided in warranted. amphibiaweb.org/declines/ the Petition and Available in Service synergisms.html). For example, Files Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing increased UV–B radiation increases the Regulatory Mechanisms susceptibility of amphibians to the Based on the information in our files, effects of contaminants, pathogens and this species has never been found in Information Provided in the Petition climate change. Dodd (1997): ‘‘The surface waters (e.g., streams, creeks) and The petition asserts that while the amphibians of this area (the Southeast), instead prefers ‘grassed areas which species occurs in Uwharrie National and particularly the fully aquatic have been cleared at some point in the Forest in North Carolina, this does not species, face a multitude of threats to past. In a few suburban areas the yards confer regulatory protection to the their long-term existence. These threats graded into woods and burrows could species or habitat. Additionally, the generally do not act independently, but be found continuing into the woods.’ Petition states that no existing instead act in concert to have Therefore, instream impoundments regulatory mechanisms adequately potentially serious long-term effects should not constitute a threat to this protect the species. (p. 185).’’ species. While McGrath (1994) did suggest urban development is a threat, Evaluation of Information Provided in Evaluation of Information Provided in he also conceded that parks and utility the Petition and Available in Service the Petition and Available in Service corridors in urbanized settings could Files Files support populations. We also already Based on information in our files, the While the petition lists a multitude of know they have been found largely in majority of the locations where the potential threats to amphibians in the previously disturbed areas (e.g., yards in species is found are areas that have been Southeast, many of these likely have urban and suburban areas). Further, disturbed. It is likely that there are limited relevance to the Florida bog NatureServe (2008) notes that, while many urbanized areas that can support frog. For instance, the only nonnative decline in habitat quality is occurring, populations (e.g., parks and utility species that have been reported as no decline has been noted in corridors), as long as the entire area is problematic for this species are feral populations or occurrences, at least in not converted to impervious surface. It hogs, Chinese tallow, and other invasive the short term. Therefore, we find that does not appear that there is a lack of plants. With respect to 90 percent of the the petition and information readily or inadequacy of necessary regulations range, ongoing management for these available in our files do not provide protecting this species, because the species is already occurring on EAFB. substantial scientific or commercial species seems to thrive in these Acidification, effects from UV–B information to indicate that the present seemingly less than ideal areas. While

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62277

the petition asserts the species habitat. It also lists other threats to threats. While impoundments in the occurance in the Uwharrie National habitat including recreational fishing lower part of the drainage may have Forest in North Carolina does not confer pressure and rechannelization of the contributed to historic habitat loss, regulatory protection to the species or drainage. neither the Petition nor information in our files indicate this is a current or habitat, the petition did not provide any Evaluation of Information Provided in evidence that a lack of regulatory the Petition and Available in Service future threat to the species. Therefore, mechanisms on the Forest has resulted Files we find that the petition and in impacts to the species or its habitat. information readily available in our files Therefore, we find that the petition and Information in our files indicates that do not provide substantial scientific or information readily available in our files the species occupies streams in rural commercial information to indicate that do not provide substantial scientific or watersheds that are not subjected to the present or threatened destruction, commercial information to indicate that significant point-source pollution or modification, or curtailment of the the inadequacy of existing regulatory other contaminants associated with species’ habitat or range may present a mechanisms may present a threat to the urban runoff. However, these basins are threat to the Blood River crayfish such Greensboro burrowing crayfish such influenced by general nonpoint-source that the petitioned action may be that the petitioned action may be storm water pollutants, primarily from warranted. warranted. agricultural sources, that affect the majority of stream basins in Kentucky. Factor B. Overutilization for Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Potential pollutants include sediment Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued (siltation), organic waste (from livestock Educational Purposes Existence or failing septic systems), pesticides, Information Provided in the Petition Information Provided in the Petition herbicides, lawn fertilizers, and other pollutants associated with roadways The petition does not directly list any The petition lists generalized threats (e.g., gasoline, oil, antifreeze, road salt). threats under this factor, but cites presented by nonnative species of Streams in these basins are also crayfish use as fishing bait for other crayfish in North Carolina, but does not physically impaired as evidenced by factors. provide any specific examples of narrow riparian zones and poor canopy Evaluation of Information Provided in impacts to this species. cover (causing elevated stream the Petition and Available in Service Evaluation of Information Provided in temperatures and reduced energy Files inputs), entrenched and straightened the Petition and Available in Service Information in our files does indicate Files channels (limiting the amount of instream habitat), eroded stream banks that crayfish are frequently used in The petition does point to an (causing increased bank scour and Kentucky as fishing bait. Any person observance of Procambrus clarkii in increased sedimentation), and widely who has obtained a Kentucky resident High Rock Reservoir near the mouth of fluctuating stream hydrographs or nonresident fishing license is South Potts Creek, but as we have (resulting in reduced base flows and permitted to possess up to 500 crayfish pointed out previously, we have no more elevated and frequent flood (301 KAR 1:130). This requirement records of this species occurring in events). Some of these physical pertains to any Kentucky species; no surface waters and find it unlikely that impairments are caused by poor restrictions are in place for any KSNPC- these species would co-occur. Further, agricultural practices, but others are listed, rare, or uncommon species. we do not have any information in our likely caused by improperly sized Overutilization of some species could be files indicating that impacts from bridges and/or culverts, especially on a problem, especially for those species nonnative crayfish are occurring or county or unpaved roads. that have limited distributions. The likely to become so for this species. Despite these general threats, the Blood River crayfish may be used Therefore, we do not believe a threat Kentucky Division of Water has not occasionally as a bait species, but we exists for this factor specific to this included any streams from the Blood have no information that overutilization species. We find that the petition and River basin on their 303d list of for recreational purposes is a significant information readily available in our files impaired waters (KDOW 2008, pp. 179– problem. Scientific or educational do not provide substantial scientific or 188). In fact, assessments conducted on researchers wishing to collect Blood commercial information to indicate that four O. burri streams, Beechy Creek, River crayfish or any other aquatic other natural or manmade factors Panther Creek, Wildcat Creek (the type species (fish, mussels) in Kentucky for affecting the species’ continued locality), and the Blood River mainstem, scientific purposes must obtain a existence may present a threat to the revealed that all of these streams were Scientific or Educational Wildlife Greensboro burrowing crayfish such fully supporting of the Warm Water Collection Permit from the Kentucky that the petitioned action may be Aquatic Habitat use designation (KDOW Department of Fish and Wildlife warranted. 2002, p. 168). Two of these streams, Resources (KDFWR). These annual Panther Creek and Blood River (at permits cost $10 (Educational) or $200 Blood River Crayfish (Orconectes Grubbs Lane), are routinely used by (Scientific) and require that the permit burri) KDOW as reference reach streams holder provide an annual report of their Factor A. The Present or Threatened (KDOW 2006, p. 33). findings to KDFWR. All Kentucky Destruction, Modification, or Although the Blood River basin is crayfishes, including O. burri, are also Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or influenced by nonpoint-source threatened by an increasingly popular Range pollutants and some of its tributaries are crayfish pet industry. Many crayfishes physically impaired, there is no are highly valued due to their large size Information Provided in the Petition evidence that these problems constitute and attractive features (color, The petition, citing NatureServe a serious threat to the Blood River morphology). Kentucky species are (2008), states that impoundment in the crayfish. The overall threat level is low being collected, transported, traded, and lower part of the drainage has based on the scope (localized), intensity sold domestically and internationally contributed to the loss of suitable (low), and exposure (small) of these under existing State regulations that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 62278 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules

allow the capture and possession of 500 Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Evaluation of Information Provided in individuals. Kentucky species can be Regulatory Mechanisms the Petition and Available in Service found on several Web sites of crayfish Files Information Provided in the Petition vendors. Information in our files indicates that The petition lists the designation of While the Blood River crayfish could the Blood River crayfish could be the species as threatened in Kentucky, be harvested for scientific research, by threatened by the introduction of but points out that this designation does collectors for sale/trade, or by nonnative crayfish species into its not protect habitat for the species. fishermen, we have no information that habitat. Species such as Orconectes the species is in high demand by Evaluation of Information Provided in rusticus (rusty crayfish) have been collectors or researchers at the present the Petition and Available in Service widely introduced across the United time based on numbers of individuals Files States because of their popularity as bait observed by Taylor and Sabaj (1998) and Information in our files is species. These species have the recently by KSNPC (Ryan Evans, summarized below. The Blood River potential to displace native crayfishes KSNPC, personal communication 2008). crayfish and its habitats are afforded through a variety of mechanisms such as In general, we have no information that some protection from water quality and direct competition or reproductive this listing factor represents a significant habitat degradation under the Clean interference (Taylor and Schuster 2004, threat to the species. The overall threat Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et p. 20). At present, we have no level is low based on the scope seq.), Kentucky’s Forest Conservation information that O. rusticus occurs in (localized), immediacy (nonimminent), Act of 1998 (KRS 149.330–355), the same streams as O. burri as no intensity (low), and exposure (small) of Kentucky’s Agriculture Water Quality individuals were observed during the the threat. Therefore, we find that the Act of 1994 (KRS 224.71–140), most recent surveys by KSNPC (Ryan petition and information readily additional Kentucky laws and Evans, KSNPC, personal available in our files do not provide regulations regarding natural resources communication, 2008). We also substantial scientific or commercial and environmental protection (KRS conclude that it is unlikely that O. information to indicate that 146.200–360; KRS 224; 401 KAR 5:026, rusticus will be introduced directly into overutilization for commercial, 5:031), and Tennessee’s Water Quality Blood River tributaries because these recreational, scientific, or educational Control Act of 1977 (T.C.A. 69–3–101). streams are not heavily used for fishing. purposes may present a threat to the The Blood River crayfish is not State- On the other hand, it is possible that O. Blood River crayfish such that the listed in Tennessee, but it has been rusticus could invade the Blood River petitioned action may be warranted. designated as a threatened species in system at a later date because it has the Factor C. Disease or Predation Kentucky (KSNPC 2005, p. 11). potential to be used as bait species in However, this designation conveys no Kentucky Lake, thereby providing a Information Provided in the Petition legal protection. The Blood River mechanism for introduction into the Blood River and its upstream tributaries The petition does not provide any crayfish may be collected for bait or captured for use as pets (possession (Guenter Schuster, EKU, personal information on this factor, and does not communication, 2008). At present, this assert it is a threat. limit of 500) under current Kentucky law (301 KAR 1:130), and the species listing factor is not considered to be a Evaluation of Information Provided in may also be collected for scientific or significant threat, but future the Petition and Available in Service educational research reasons by introductions of O. rusticus into the Files obtaining an Educational or Scientific Blood River basin are possible. Therefore, we find that the petition and Information in our files indicates that Wildlife Collection Permit from KDFWR. information readily available in our files disease and predation are not known to do not provide substantial scientific or be a significant threat for this species Based on numbers of individuals observed by Taylor and Sabaj (1998) and commercial information to indicate that and is, instead, a normal part of its life other natural or manmade factors history. Some natural predators of the recently by KSNPC (Ryan Evans, KSNPC, personal communication 2008), affecting the species’ continued species include the raccoon (Procyon existence may present a threat to the lotor), river otter (Lontra canadensis), the species is not being significantly reduced in number by bait collecting, Blood River crayfish such that the great blue heron (Ardea herodias), petitioned action may be warranted. mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus), the pet trade, or scientific research. The queen snake (Regina septemvittata), overall threat level is low for this listing Finding factor. Therefore, we find that the water snakes (Nerodia spp.), bullfrog In summary, the petition included petition and information readily (Rana catesbeiana), and various 404 species that are primarily aquatic available in our files do not provide sunfishes (Micropterus and Lepomis and found mainly in the southeastern substantial scientific or commercial spp.). Mortality from disease or United States. After a careful review of information to indicate that the predation likely occurs but has not the Petition and information readily inadequacy of existing regulatory eliminated this and other crayfish available in our files, we have found mechanisms may present a threat to the species in the past, and we have no that the Petition does not present Blood River crayfish such that the information that disease or predation substantial information regarding 11 of petitioned action may be warranted. poses a substantial threat to the species these species. in the future. Therefore, we find that the Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Sarah’s Hydroptila Caddisfly petition and information readily Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued available in our files do not provide Existence The petition states that Sarah’s substantial scientific or commercial hydroptila caddisfly faces threats under information to indicate that disease or Information Provided in the Petition Factors A and D, but does not provide predation may present a threat to Blood The petition lists the introduction of specific examples or additional River crayfish such that the petitioned invasive species, which are used for information. After review of the action may be warranted. fishing bait as a potential threat. information in our files, we find that the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62279

species is located in more locations (11 Crystal Darter population distribution or viability in versus 4) within EAFB than indicated in the species range. the Petition, and that the species is The petition (pp. 285–286) claims that Florida Bog Frog adequately protected from threats the crystal darter faces threats under through EAFB’s INRMP and existing Factors A, D, and E. However, the The petition cites threats under State and Federal laws and regulations. petition, as well as the information Factors A, B, C, D, and E. However, available in our files concerning threats threats from habitat destruction and Rogue Creek Hydroptila Caddisfly to crystal darter populations, lacks modification and from the inadequacy The Petition states that the Rogue detail on the response of these of existing regulatory mechanisms are Creek hydroptila caddisfly faces threats populations to general threats. The largely alleviated through existing under Factors A and D, but does not Service conducted a species assessment management and protection of habitat provide specific examples or additional of the crystal darter in 2009 and found on EAFB, while the threats listed under information. After review of the that low threat levels do exist under Factors B, C, and E are largely general information in our files, we find that the Factors A and E. However, we threats and likely have very limited species is located in eight locations concluded in the status assessment that relevance to this species. In addition, within EAFB, and that the species is these factors do not threaten the darter EAFB management is targeting emerging adequately protected from threats to the point it meets the definition of a threats to the species already (like those through EAFB’s INRMP and existing ‘‘threatened species’’ or an ‘‘endangered presented by invasive plants). State and Federal laws and regulations. species.’’ Biologists among different Greensboro Burrowing Crayfish Florida Brown Checkered Summer States have indicated that new The petition asserts that threats from Sedge technologies have allowed for more effective sampling of crystal darters and Factors A, D, and E are affecting this The petition states that the Florida suggest that they are more abundant and species but does not provide specific brown checkered summer sedge faces widely distributed than originally examples or information to demonstrate threats under Factors A and D, but does believed. Furthermore, there exists little this. Based on information in our files, not provide specific examples or information that known populations this species is more widespread than additional information. After review of have either declined or increased in originally thought and seems to prefer the information in our files, we find that their abundance. The main source of previously disturbed areas in urban and the species is widespread, but not information for identifying the species suburban areas. Further, NatureServe common on EAFB, and that the species as uncommon is based largely on the (2008) notes that while decline in is adequately protected from threats fact that historically specimens had habitat quality is occurring, no decline through EAFB’s INRMP and existing been rarely collected. In the species has been noted in populations or State and Federal laws and regulations. assessment we conducted in 2009 occurrences, at least in the short term. We currently have no information on (Service 2009), we found that, along Blood River Crayfish other populations outside of EAFB or with the current status information, the any threats acting on those populations, information on the threats to the species The petition states that the Blood though the occurrence in Hamilton did not support a proposal to list the River crayfish faces threats under County, Florida, is disputed. species and, therefore, it was not Factors A, D, and E, but does not Ouachita Creekshell elevated to candidate status. Neither the provide specific examples or additional petition nor information in our files information. As demonstrated by the The petition claims that the Ouachita provides any substantial new threats analysis above, there is no creekshell is threatened by Factors A, D information on the threats to the crystal known significant threat to the Blood and E. However, the petition, as well as darter. River crayfish as a result of any of the the information available in our files five listing factors. The species currently concerning threats to the species, lacks Spotted Darter occupies watersheds that are subjected detail on the species response to these The petition cites threats from factors to water quality impairment and general threats. For example, many physical habitat disturbance, but it does Ouachita creekshell extant and A, C, D, and E. However, many of these are only general threats and there is no not appear that these threats are historical populations occur on public adversely affecting the species’ status. lands (e.g., Ouachita National Forest, information that they are acting negatively on the species, including The Blood River crayfish appears to be State parks, and wildlife management maintaining its populations and remains areas). Approximately 85 percent of the those threats identified from inadequate regulatory mechanisms, limited genetic the dominant crayfish species in these Ouachita River basin upstream of Lake watersheds. Ouachita is within Ouachita National variation, climate change, and Forest. Accordingly, populations of this predation. The information provided by Florida Fairy Shrimp and South Florida species are substantially protected from the petition and readily available in our Rainbow Snake habitat destruction and alteration. files is not specific enough to determine Because the information presented by Furthermore, we concluded in our 2009 impacts to the species from these petitioners as well as information in our status assessment that stressors are threats, or to identify any of these as a files suggests that the species are likely to be localized and moderately significant threat affecting the species already extinct, they do not meet the degrade aquatic biota and habitat over a viability. definition of an endangered species or a portion of the watershed and that the The petition does present information threatened species under the Act impacts of mining are localized and on historical habitat degradation, (section 3(6) and 3(20), respectively). have a minimum effect on the species however, the information in our files Therefore, an analysis of the five threat rangewide. We concluded in the status does not indicate that the present or factors was not appropriate. assessment that the species did not threatened destruction, modification, or In summary, we reviewed the warrant listing, and neither the petition curtailment of the spotted darter’s information presented in the petition nor information in our files provided habitat or range is a significant threat or and evaluated that information in any substantial new information. that it will cause substantial losses of relation to information readily available

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4 62280 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules

in our files. On the basis of our evidence sufficient to suggest that these References Cited determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) factors may be operative threats that act A complete list of references cited is of the Act, we conclude that the petition on these species. available on the Internet at http:// does not present substantial scientific or Although we will not review the www.regulations.gov and upon request commercial information to indicate that status of any of these species at this from the Southeast Ecological Services listing the Sarah’s hydroptila caddisfly, time, we encourage interested parties to Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly, continue to gather data and submit INFORMATION CONTACT). Florida brown checkered summer sedge, Florida fairy shrimp, South Florida information that will assist with the Authors conservation of Sarah’s hydroptila rainbow snake, Ouachita creekshell, The primary authors of this document crystal darter, spotted darter, Florida caddisfly, Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly, Florida brown checkered are the staff members of the Southeast bog frog, Greensboro burrowing Region Ecological Services Office. crayfish, and Blood River crayfish under summer sedge, Ouachita creekshell, the Act as endangered or threatened crystal darter, spotted darter, Florida Authority may be warranted at this time. There is bog frog, Greensboro burrowing crayfish, and Blood River crayfish. We The authority for this action is the no evidence either presented in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as likewise encourage interested parties to petition or available in our files, to amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). indicate that any of these species are submit any information they possess on affected by the five factors, acting either the Florida fairy shrimp, and South Dated: September 26, 2011. singly or in combination, to the point Florida rainbow snake. You may submit Rowan W. Gould, that the species may meet the definition your information or materials to Chief, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife of a ‘‘threatened species’’ or an Division of Endangered Species, Service. ‘‘endangered species’’ under the Act. Southeast Region Office (see [FR Doc. 2011–25672 Filed 10–5–11; 8:45 am] The information does not contain ADDRESSES), at any time. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06OCP4.SGM 06OCP4 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4