Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15919 

78NTEA stated to its members that it could 

submit a petition and individual companies would 

only need to submit limited information to opt-in. 

See National Truck Equipment Association, 

Certification Guide, Appendix 5l (2007). 

before the test, per the regulation. 

Furthermore, it is not apparent how the 

modifications generally made by a finalstage manufacturer will create 

compliance difficulties with FMVSS No. 

216a. Moreover, as we explained in the 

multi-stage certification rulemaking, if 

final-stage manufacturers identify 

particular areas where compliance with 

FMVSS No. 216a is a problem, they, or 

NTEA on behalf of its members, can 

petition for a temporary exemption 

under 49 CFR part 555.78

In our Further Response, we stated 

that in analyzing the 2006 GMT–355 

IVD, which is for a body-on-frame 

vehicle, pass-through certification 

would be available to final-stage 

manufacturers if no modifications were 

made to the roof or its structural support 

members. We still believe that to be 

true. NTEA has not presented NHTSA 

with descriptions or evidence of any 

modifications that are made to a chassiscab or its support structure. If such 

modifications do occur, they could 

affect the vehicle’s compliance with 

FMVSS No. 216a if the roof or its 

support structure is weakened. 

However, we have no evidence that 

such modifications occur. As we 

presented earlier in this document, 

NHTSA is unaware of equipment 

manufacturers that require 

modifications to the chassis-cab or its 

support structure. 

The only modifications mentioned by 

NTEA in it comments or petition is 

where a final-stage manufacturer drills 

holes in the frame rails behind the 

chassis-cab and attaches a box onto 

those frame rails. FMVSS No. 216a will 

only test the roof strength of the chassiscab independent of the vehicle’s frame. 

The chassis-cab is manufactured by an 

incomplete vehicle manufacturer who 

will provide the final-stage 

manufacturer with a compliant roof. 

Therefore, provided modifications are 

not made to the vehicle’s chassis-cab or 

its support structure, subsequent 

modifications to the vehicle’s frame 

rails will not affect the vehicle’s 

performance in the FMVSS No. 216a 

test. For those reasons, NHTSA believes 

there was no reason for the agency to 

specifically test a completed multi-stage 

truck in support of its evaluation. 

H. All Multi-Stage Vehicles Should Not 

Be Excluded 

NTEA argued that excluding all multistage vehicles would not unacceptably 

deprive those users of the safety benefits 

provided by the roof crush standard. 

NTEA stated that its statistics show that 

the vast majority of multi-stage vehicles 

are rated above 6,000 pounds. NTEA 

noted that FMVSS No. 216a excludes 

trucks other than ones built on chassiscabs (and incomplete vehicles with a 

full exterior van body), meaning that the 

agency excluded approximately onethird of multi-stage vehicles with a 

GVWR of 6001 pounds to 10,000 

pounds. NTEA also said that chassis 

with a GVWR of over 10,000 pounds 

constitute 94.5 percent of the entire 

market of chassis rated above 6,000 

pounds. Thus, the vast majority of 

multi-stage vehicles above 6,000 pounds 

GVWR are already excluded from 

FMVSS No. 216a, and its position 

would not have any appreciable effect 

on the multi-stage vehicle population 

that will be subject to the rule. 

NTEA’s argument ignores the fact that 

Congress, in SAFETEA–LU, required 

NHTSA to establish rules or standards 

that will reduce vehicle rollover crashes 

and mitigate deaths and injuries 

associated with such crashes for motor 

vehicles with a GVWR of not more than 

10,000 pounds. We recognized in the 

final rule that there are benefits for 

vehicles with a GVWR above 6,000 

pounds up to 10,000 pounds, although 

they are relatively small compared to 

those associated with lighter vehicles. 

However, the benefits are not trivial. We 

noted that if a multi-stage vehicle is 

involved in a rollover, the vehicle’s roof 

strength will be an important factor in 

providing occupant protection. 

In the final rule, as discussed above, 

NHTSA included those multi-stage 

trucks that have an intact, compliant 

roof structure when it leaves the 

incomplete vehicle manufacturer and 

excluded those trucks for which the 

final-stage manufacturer would be 

responsible for designing and 

manufacturing the roof structure. While 

the number of included vehicles is a 

small number of the total multi-stage 

vehicles built and certified every day, 

adequate justification as to why the 

drivers of chassis-cabs should be less 

safe than the driver of a nearly identical 

pickup truck has not been provided. 

This is especially so when the laterstage manufacturing does not affect the 

strength of the chassis-cab’s roof. 

While there may not be an 

appreciable effect on the entire multistage population, as NTEA argues, that 

was not the intent. Instead, the intent 

was to implement the provisions of 

SAFETEA–LU and, where practicable, 

to give drivers of vehicles with a GVWR 

of 10,000 pounds or less increased 

safety in case of a rollover. We note that 

NTEA has not presented a persuasive 

safety argument. Instead, its arguments 

are based primarily on overstated 

certification risk. As such, we believe 

that this rule should continue to include 

those vehicles with an intact, compliant 

roof structure, whether they are 

delivered to the dealership or the finalstage manufacturer. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons discussed above, we 

deny the petition for reconsideration 

submitted by NTEA. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued: March 16, 2011. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6595 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2010–0011; MO 

92210–0–0008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List the Berry Cave 

Salamander as Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the Berry Cave salamander 

(Gyrinophilus gulolineatus) as 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

After review of all available scientific 

and commercial information, we find 

that listing the Berry Cave salamander is 

warranted. Currently, however, listing is 

precluded by higher priority actions to 

amend the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon 

publication of this 12-month petition 

finding, we will add the Berry Cave 

salamander to our candidate species list. 

We will develop a proposed rule to list 

the Berry Cave salamander as our 

priorities allow. We will make any 

determination on critical habitat during 

development of the proposed listing 

rule. During any interim period, we will 

address the status of the candidate taxon 

through our annual Candidate Notice of 

Review (CNOR). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
15920 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on March 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R4–ES–2010–0011. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Tennessee 

Ecological Services Field Office, 446 

Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this finding to the above 

street address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary E. Jennings, Field Supervisor, 

Tennessee Ecological Services Field 

Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 

38501; by telephone 931–528–6481; or 

by facsimile at 931–528–7075. If you use 

a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 

any petition to revise the Federal Lists 

of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants that contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

that listing a species may be warranted, 

we make a finding within 12 months of 

the date of receipt of the petition. In this 

finding, we determine whether the 

petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, 

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether species are 

endangered or threatened, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 

treat a petition for which the requested 

action is found to be warranted but 

precluded as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, that is, requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. We must publish these 12- 

month findings in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On January 22, 2003, we received a 

petition dated January 15, 2003, from 

Dr. John Nolt, University of Tennessee— 

Knoxville, requesting that we list the 

Berry Cave salamander as endangered 

under the Act. The petition clearly 

identified itself as such and included 

the requisite identification information 

for the petitioner, as required in 50 CFR 

424.14(a). In a February 24, 2003, letter 

to the petitioner, we responded that we 

had received the petition but that, due 

to court orders and settlement 

agreements for other listing and critical 

habitat actions that required nearly all 

of our listing and critical habitat 

funding, we would not be able to further 

address the petition at that time. 

The 90-day petition finding was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 18, 2010 (75 FR 13068). The 

Service found that the information 

provided in the petition, supporting 

information submitted with the petition, 

and information otherwise available in 

our files did provide substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing the Berry Cave 

salamander may be warranted. In the 

finding, we stated that we were 

initiating a status review to determine 

whether listing the species was 

warranted, and would issue a 12-month 

finding accordingly. This document 

constitutes the 12-month finding on the 

January 15, 2003, petition to list the 

Berry Cave salamander. 

Species Information 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Three taxonomic entities have been 

formally described within the 

Tennessee cave salamander species 

complex. The pale salamander 

(Gyrinophilus palleucus palleucus) is 

the most widely distributed member of 

the group and is found in middle 

Tennessee, northern Alabama, and 

northwestern Georgia. The Big Mouth 

Cave salamander (G. p. necturoides) is 

restricted to one cave in middle 

Tennessee, and the Berry Cave 

salamander (G. gulolineatus) (formerly 

recognized as the subspecies G. p. 

gulolineatus) has been recorded from 

nine locations in eastern Tennessee. 

Members of the Tennessee cave 

salamander complex are related to the 

spring salamander (G. porphyriticus); 

however, unlike the spring salamander, 

they usually are found in caves and are 

neotenic, meaning that they normally 

retain larval characteristics as adults. 

Individuals occasionally metamorphose 

and lose their larval characters 

(Simmons 1976, p. 256; Yeatman and 

Miller 1985, pp. 305–306), and 

metamorphosis can be induced by 

subjecting them to hormones (Dent and 

Kirby-Smith 1963, p. 123). 

The Berry Cave salamander is 

differentiated from other members of the 

group by a distinctive dark stripe on the 

upper portion of the throat, a wider 

head, a flatter snout, and possibly a 

larger size (Brandon 1965, p. 347). 

Despite these differences, the taxonomic 

status of the Berry Cave salamander has 

been debated for some time. The Berry 

Cave salamander was recognized as a 

distinct aquatic, cave-dependant taxon 

of the Tennessee cave salamander 

complex by Brandon (1965, pp. 346– 

352), who described it as a subspecies 

(G. p. gulolineatus). The Tennessee 

Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) 

(2005, p. 50) still uses this subspecific 

designation. Brandon et al. (1986, pp. 1– 

2) suggested the Berry Cave salamander 

be considered separate from the 

Tennessee cave salamander based on 

nonadjacent ranges (it is geographically 

isolated from other members of the 

complex), dissimilarity in bone 

structures of transformed adults, and 

morphology of neotenic adults. 

Furthermore, Niemiller et al. (2010b, 

p. 5) found that Berry Cave salamander 

populations they sampled have three 

unique alleles when compared to the 

Tennessee cave salamander. According 

to Niemiller et al. (2008, p. 2), current 

taxonomy recognizes the Tennessee 

cave salamander (G. palleucus) and the 

Berry Cave salamander (G. gulolineatus) 

as two independent species. Because 

most authorities now assign the Berry 

Cave salamander species-level status 

(Brandon 1965, p. 347; Brandon 1986, 

pp. 1–2; Collins 1991, p. 43; Simmons 

1976, p. 276; IUCN 2010; ITIS 2010), we 

consider the Berry Cave salamander to 

be a distinct species, G. gulolineatus, for 

the purposes of this finding. 

Distribution 

Until recently, only eight populations 

of the Berry Cave salamander were 

documented: Seven from caves and one 

from a roadside ditch in McMinn 

County, Tennessee, where three 

individuals were collected (presumably 

washed into the ditch from a cave). 

Salamanders in Cruze Cave, formerly 

considered to be Berry Cave 

salamanders, are now thought to be 

spring salamanders (Miller and 

Niemiller 2008, p. 14). A closer analysis 

of Cruze Cave animals revealed the 

presence of an iris (absent in the Berry 

Cave salamander), a high propensity to 

metamorphose (23 percent of 

individuals collected), and relatively 

large eye size when compared to Berry 

Cave salamanders (Miller and Niemiller 

2008, p. 14). Furthermore, genetics 

indicated that Cruze Cave individuals 

shared the spring salamander’s 

haplotype (closely linked genetic 

markers present on a single 

chromosome) and group (having a 

common ancestor) (Niemiller 2006, p. 

41). Therefore Cruze Cave is no longer 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15921 

thought to contain a population of Berry 

Cave salamanders. 

However, recent population surveys 

(April 2004 through June 2007) resulted 

in the discovery of Berry Cave 

salamanders in two new Knox County 

caves (Aycock Spring and Christian 

caves). According to Miller and 

Niemiller (2008, p. 10), the Berry Cave 

salamander is recorded from nine 

localities within the Appalachian Valley 

and Ridge Province in East Tennessee. 

These include eight caves within the 

Upper Tennessee River and Clinch 

River drainages (Niemiller et al. 2009, p. 

243) and one unknown cave in McMinn 

County, Tennessee (Brandon 1965, p. 

348). The Berry Cave salamander is 

currently known from Berry Cave, 

which is located south of Knoxville, 

Tennessee (in Roane County) (Niemiller 

2006, p. 96); from Mud Flats, Aycock 

Spring, Christian, Meades Quarry, 

Meades River, and Fifth caves in Knox 

County (Niemiller and Miller 2010, p. 

2), the latter three being part of the 

larger Meades Quarry Cave System 

(Brian Miller, Middle Tennessee State 

University, pers. comm., 2010); from 

Blythe Ferry Cave (in Meigs County) 

(Niemiller and Miller 2010, p. 2); and 

from an unknown cave in Athens, 

McMinn County, Tennessee. The 

Athens record is based solely on the 

three specimens collected in a roadside 

ditch during a flooding of Oostanaula 

(Eastanollee) Creek (Brandon 1965, pp. 

348–349). The species has not been 

observed in the Athens area since 1953. 

Miller and Niemiller (2008, p. 11) 

suggested that populations of the Berry 

Cave salamander could occur 

throughout the Valley and Ridge 

Province in interconnected subterranean 

waters associated with the Tennessee 

River. Distribution studies are limited 

due to inaccessibility of smaller cave 

systems, but Miller and Niemiller (2006, 

p. 15) suggest that cave salamander 

populations are likely small. Western 

dispersal appears to be prohibited by a 

fault zone located west of the East 

Tennessee Aquifer System (Miller and 

Niemiller 2008, p. 10). 

Historical estimates of Berry Cave 

salamander densities and population 

trends are lacking. Miller and Niemiller 

(2006, p. 44) provided numbers of Berry 

Cave salamanders observed in Berry and 

Mudflats caves by decade, but the 

information has gaps and is insufficient 

for analysis. Miller and Niemiller (2005, 

p. 93) planned to implant salamanders 

with tags for population estimates on 

return cave visits, comparing marked to 

unmarked individuals captured. 

However, in an unpublished report to 

TWRA (Miller and Niemiller 2006, p. 

15), the authors state that time 

constraints did not allow for markrecapture studies to be performed in 

each cave and that population estimates 

were based on the number of 

salamanders found during the surveys. 

These surveys concluded that Berry 

Cave salamander populations are robust 

at Berry and Mudflats caves where 

population declines had been 

previously reported (Miller and 

Niemiller 2008, p. 1; Miller and 

Niemiller 2006, p. 44). According to 

Miller and Niemiller (2008, pp. 1, 17– 

20), a total of 113 caves in Middle and 

East Tennessee were surveyed from the 

time period of April 2004 through June 

2007, resulting in observations of 63 

Berry Cave salamanders. 

Habitat 

Limited information is available 

concerning the habitat requirements of 

the Berry Cave salamander. According 

to Miller and Niemiller (2008, pp. 

10–11), the Berry Cave salamander is 

associated with subterranean waters 

within the Appalachian Valley and 

Ridge Province in East Tennessee. In 

general, cave-obligate salamanders 

require an inflow of organic detritus, 

aquatic organisms on which to feed, and 

sufficient cover in the form of rocks and 

ledges. Studies indicate that the 

tendency to utilize cover varies between 

caves, but the Berry Cave salamander 

often seeks refuge in crevices, cover 

areas, and overhanging ledges when 

disturbed (Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 10; 

Miller and Niemiller 2006, p. 11). 

Biology 

Life requirements of the Tennessee 

cave salamander complex are poorly 

documented due to their reclusive 

nature and the obscurity of subterranean 

environments (Niemiller 2006, p. 9). 

Animals found in the same location 

during mark-recapture studies indicate 

that Berry Cave salamander territories 

are diminutive (Miller and Niemiller 

2008, p. 11). 

Little is known in general about 

breeding habits, life spans, or numbers 

comprising individual populations 

within the Tennessee cave salamander 

complex (Miller and Niemiller 2005, p. 

92). Transition time from larval stage to 

reproductive adult is currently 

undocumented. Members of the 

Tennessee cave salamander complex are 

paedomorphic (retain juvenile 

characteristics as an adult) and become 

sexually mature without 

metamorphosing into an adult form 

(Brandon 1966, in Niemiller et al. 2008, 

p. 2). Female salamanders in the 

Tennessee cave salamander complex are 

believed to be gravid from late autumn 

to early winter (Niemiller et al. 2010a, 

p. 39). Gyrinophilus species are 

generalist feeders and cannibalization of 

other conspecifics (belonging to the 

same species) may cause females of 

some species to seek isolation from 

main cave streams for oviposition 

(laying eggs) (Niemiller et al. 2010a, pp. 

38–39). To date, neither eggs nor 

embryos have been described (Niemiller 

and Miller 2010, p. 1). 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424), set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, a species may be determined to be 

endangered or threatened based on any 

of the following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats to a species, we must 

look beyond the mere exposure of the 

species to the factor to evaluate whether 

the species may respond to the factor in 

a way that causes actual impacts to the 

species. If there is exposure to a factor 

and the species responds negatively, the 

factor may be a threat and we attempt 

to determine how significant a threat it 

is. The threat is significant if it drives, 

or contributes to, the risk of extinction 

of the species such that the species 

warrants listing as endangered or 

threatened as those terms are defined in 

the Act. 

In making this finding, information 

pertaining to the Berry Cave salamander 

in relation to the five factors provided 

in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed 

below. 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

According to Caldwell and Copeland 

(1992, pp. 3–4), the greatest threats to 

the Tennessee cave salamander complex 

are derived from agricultural runoff, 

pesticide use in residential and 

agricultural settings, over-collection, 

increased water flow into and through 

cave systems following timber 

operations, and siltation caused by the 

removal of trees from riparian zones. 

Although standard best management 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
15922 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

practices (BMPs) for timber harvesting 

require intact riparian buffers and 

prohibit instream operation of heavy 

equipment, these BMPs are not always 

followed and may not fully prevent 

sediment from entering streams. 

Siltation may adversely affect 

reproduction by filling crevices used for 

egg deposition or covering the eggs 

themselves (Miller and Niemiller 2006, 

p. 22). Niemiller and Miller (2006, p. 10) 

believe that Berry Cave salamander 

populations, specifically, are most 

vulnerable to habitat degradation 

associated with urbanization, overcollecting, and poor silvicultural and 

agricultural practices. 

Boone and Bridges (2003) (in Miller 

and Niemiller (2006, p. 22)) found that 

water contamination caused by 

pesticide and roadway runoff poses a 

considerable threat to cave systems. 

Hayes et al. (2006, p. 40) suggest that 

amphibians are particularly vulnerable 

to pesticides due to their highly 

permeable skin combined with the fact 

that their critical reproductive and 

developmental stages occur while they 

are in aquatic environments. Some 

persistent pesticides are active at low 

environmental concentrations and act as 

endocrine disrupters in amphibians, 

causing delayed metamorphosis, 

developmental retardation, and stunted 

larval growth (Hayes et al. 2006, p. 40). 

According to Miller and Niemiller 

(2008, p. 13), there are few water quality 

data available for caves where the Berry 

Cave salamander is documented, and 

the source of the streams is not well 

understood. Niemiller (2006, p. 96) 

observed three individuals in Meades 

Quarry Cave and three in Mudflats 

Cave, caves that are heavily silted and 

prone to flooding (Miller and Niemiller 

2006, p. 22). The Mudflats Cave system 

is thought to be affected by residential 

pollution (e.g., herbicides, pesticides, 

exhaust runoff, and silt load) from a 

nearby housing development (Miller 

and Niemiller 2008, p. 13), although no 

studies have been done to substantiate 

this (Miller, pers. comm., 2005). 

Caldwell and Copeland (1992, p. 3) 

suggest that increased ‘‘through flow’’ 

(water passing through the cave) can 

flush salamanders and their aquatic 

invertebrate food base from caves as 

well as introduce contaminants into 

them at a quicker rate. Miller and 

Niemiller (2006, pp. 22–23) cite Boone 

and Bridges (2003) as evidence of 

adverse effects to amphibian species 

from pesticide contamination, but note 

that regular flooding of caves appears to 

wash silt from the systems and that data 

on the long-term effects to the species 

from ‘‘through flow’’ fluctuations are 

lacking. 

Meades Quarry Cave continues to be 

greatly impacted by past quarrying 

activities. Niemiller et al. (2010b, p. 11) 

indicate that cave passages were 

destroyed by quarrying and that lye 

leaching continues to alkalize the 

system near the main entrance to the 

cave. Water pH tests reveal fluctuations 

in pH levels from 8.4 to 12.7 

downstream of the cave entrance, and 

Berry Cave salamanders have been 

observed with chemical burns 

(Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 11). Matthew 

Niemiller (University of Tennessee, 

pers. comm., 2010) suggested that 

removal of larger lye deposits would 

reduce alkalinity input if the main point 

source could be located. 

There are substantial concerns for the 

six documented Knox County caves 

where Berry Cave salamanders are 

known to occur (Mud Flats, Aycock 

Spring, Christian, Meades Quarry, 

Meades River, and Fifth caves) due to 

growth of metropolitan Knoxville 

(Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 1). 

Construction activities, such as 

residential and business developments, 

land clearing, and highway projects, 

frequently result in stream siltation, 

toxic runoff (e.g., solvents, chemical 

spills, road salt oil and grease), and 

urban pollution. Stream temperatures 

are elevated by removal of trees from 

riparian zones (forested land along 

streams and rivers), and hydrologic 

fluctuations result from increased silt 

load; elevated stream temperatures and 

hydrologic fluctuations both potentially 

affect the quantity and quality of organic 

matter available to cave systems. Data 

are currently lacking on long-term 

effects of hydrologic fluctuations on 

salamander population size, but it is 

thought that an increase in siltation 

affects reproduction (Miller and 

Niemiller 2006, pp. 22–23). While Berry 

Cave salamander populations have 

persisted, development is known to be 

occurring and affecting the salamander 

in all six Knox County caves. Heavy 

siltation is present in Mudflats Cave, 

believed to be associated with the 

Gettysvue housing development 

(Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 11). Miller 

and Niemiller (2008, p. 13) indicate that 

residential housing developments and 

roads are being constructed near Aycock 

Spring and Christian caves. 

Development of a major roadway known 

as the James White Parkway (South 

Knoxville Boulevard) has potential to 

impact Berry Cave salamander 

populations in the Meades Quarry Cave 

system (Meades Quarry, Meades River, 

and Fifth caves) by increased siltation 

from construction, the creation or 

closures of cave openings by blasting 

and excavating activities which could 

affect organic input into the system, and 

an increase in impervious surface runoff 

that may contain various environmental 

contaminants (e.g., oil, herbicides, salt). 

Meades Quarry Cave contains the largest 

population of Berry Cave salamanders 

documented and is currently impacted 

by hybridization with the spring 

salamander and lye leaching associated 

with past quarrying activities (Niemiller 

and Miller 2010, p. 3; M. Niemiller, 

pers. comm., July 2010). 

Due to the proximity of the Meades 

Quarry Cave system to the proposed 

James White Parkway, the Service 

requested, during a March 4, 2003, 

meeting with the Tennessee Department 

of Transportation (TDOT), that a study 

be prepared to determine whether the 

potential alignments would impact the 

surface area that recharges the Meades 

Quarry Cave system. As a result, TDOT 

contracted ARCADIS to perform a dye 

trace study of the affected watershed. 

ARCADIS (2009, p. 1–2) conducted a 

hydrogeologic dye trace study from 

April through June 2009 to determine 

which karst features within the Toll 

Subwatershed (i.e., a surface watershed 

overlying Meades Quarry and Cruze 

caves) are connected to the Meades 

Quarry Cave system. A positive trace 

from a large sinkhole, just north of 

Sevierville Pike, indicates that it 

directly recharges the Meades Quarry 

Cave system, and it is likely that four 

smaller sinkholes, in proximity to this 

one, also drain into the Meades Quarry 

Cave (ARCADIS 2009, pp. 5–1, 5–2). 

Dye trace results demonstrated a general 

southwest to northeast orientation of 

groundwater flow (ARCADIS 2009, 

p. 5–1) and appeared to substantiate the 

hypothesis (based on surface flow) that 

Cruze Cave and Meades Quarry Cave 

systems were not hydrologically 

connected. 

TDOT, in cooperation with the 

Federal Highway Administration, is 

preparing an EIS for the James White 

Parkway project (John Hunter, TDOT 

Project Manager, pers. comm., June 

2009; Luke Eggering, Parsons 

Consulting, pers. comm. October 2010). 

The concerns for potential impacts to 

the Meades Quarry Cave system and the 

Berry Cave salamander are being 

addressed by substantial changes in 

project design. In an effort to satisfy the 

purpose and need of the project while 

minimizing environmental impacts, 

TDOT is now proposing to construct a 

fully access-controlled facility (South 

Knoxville Boulevard EIS 2010, p. 10). 

Furthermore, the alignments under 

consideration have been purposefully 

designed to avoid or minimize impacts 

to the recharge area for the Meades 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15923 

Quarry Cave system (South Knoxville 

Boulevard EIS 2010, p. 43). If direct 

impacts are unavoidable, TDOT is 

proposing to install filtration systems at 

sinkholes that recharge the Meades 

Quarry Cave system and to suggest that 

local planners control growth by 

implementing development buffers 

around environmentally sensitive areas 

(South Knoxville Boulevard EIS 2010, 

pp. 43–44). 

Ogden (2005) conducted a dye trace 

study on the watershed contributing 

groundwater to the Berry Cave system in 

Roane County, Tennessee. As 

determined by Ogden (2005, p. 4), five 

first-order streams contribute to surface 

recharge of the Berry Cave system. The 

recharge area was delineated following 

two dye traces and is comprised of firstorder streams that join the main sinking 

stream at the cave entrance (Ogden 

2005, p. 19). The cave stream is believed 

to receive year-round input from 

Lawhon and Schommen springs and 

empties into a spring on the bank of the 

Watts Bar Lake (Ogden 2005, p. 4). 

Water quality results indicated normal 

conductivity levels and low nitrate 

levels despite extensive cattle grazing 

within the recharge area. Sulfate, iron, 

and phosphate levels were also 

determined to be low, and pH measured 

at approximately 7.0 at the time of 

sampling (Ogden 2005, p. 14). 

According to The Nature Conservancy 

(2006, Table 2), current threats to Berry 

Cave include bacteriological loading in 

the form of fecal coliform from 

agricultural runoff, disruption of organic 

flow due to a lack of cattle exclusion, 

and erosion/sedimentation caused by 

cattle access to streams that feed into 

Berry Cave. However, water quality tests 

conducted in conjunction with the dye 

trace study indicate that the system is 

uncontaminated (Ogden 2005, p. 14), 

and we have no evidence to suggest that 

any of these impacts are occurring. 

The Federal Government’s Clean 

Water Act (CWA) of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.) sets standards for releasing 

pollutants into waters of the United 

States and regulates water quality 

standards for surface water. Projects that 

could impact waters having a 

‘‘significant nexus’’ to ‘‘navigable waters’’ 

are required under this law to apply for 

a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

prior to construction. The Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation’s Division of Water 

Pollution Control under the Tennessee 

Water Quality Control Act requires that 

the applicant perform compensatory 

mitigation for loss of linear feet of 

stream or pay into the Tennessee Stream 

Mitigation Program. While these laws 

are designed to protect water quality, 

impacts from projects are seldom 

viewed cumulatively, and compensatory 

mitigation might not involve reparation 

activities within the affected watershed. 

Therefore, degradation of habitat for this 

species is ongoing, and these laws have 

not been adequate to fully protect this 

species from water quality impacts 

associated with increasing development 

and urbanization. 

In summary, Knox County 

populations are believed to be highly 

susceptible to habitat degradation from 

surrounding development (Miller and 

Niemiller 2008, p. 13). Residential 

pollutants, increased silt load from 

construction activities, and runoff of 

impervious surfaces associated with 

urban development are ongoing threats 

to Berry Cave salamander populations 

in six caves within metropolitan 

Knoxville. Three of these populations 

(Meades Quarry, Meades River, and 

Fifth caves) are part of the larger Meades 

Quarry Cave system (Miller, pers. 

comm., 2010) and could be impacted by 

development of the proposed James 

White Parkway Project. Past quarrying 

activities have resulted in high water pH 

levels within the Meades Quarry Cave 

and observations of Berry Cave 

salamanders with chemical burns. 

Residential housing developments and 

road construction are occurring in 

proximity to Aycock Spring and 

Christian caves (Miller and Niemiller 

2008, p. 13). The Mudflats Cave 

population is believed to be impacted 

by a nearby housing development and 

associated water quality impacts (Miller 

and Niemiller 2008, p. 13). Water 

samples indicate that Berry Cave is 

uncontaminated, and cattle access to 

streams that recharge the system is 

evidently not impacting the cave system 

at this time. However, because of the 

overall vulnerability of the Berry Cave 

salamander to impacts associated with 

urbanization and the extent of overlap 

between current and projected 

urbanization and Berry Cave salamander 

populations, we find the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range to be 

a significant threat of moderate 

magnitude. Further, the information 

available to us at this time does not 

indicate that the magnitude or 

imminence of this threat is likely to be 

appreciably reduced in the foreseeable 

future. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Most caves containing Berry Cave 

salamander populations are privately 

owned, and visits to some of these caves 

are unsupervised (Miller and Niemiller 

2006, p. 24; Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 

12), making the Berry Cave salamander 

vulnerable to recreational harvest. The 

most robust Berry Cave salamander 

populations occur in caves that are 

either gated or owned by conscientious 

landowners who monitor access, but the 

threat of harvesting individuals for the 

pet trade exists in unmonitored caves 

(M. Niemiller, pers. comm., 2010). 

Because populations are considered to 

be small (Miller and Niemiller 2006, 

p. 15) and reproductive rates are low, 

unregulated take of individuals could 

severely deplete breeding populations of 

Berry Cave salamanders (Niemiller et al. 

2010b, p. 12). However, we currently 

have no evidence to suggest that 

recreational harvesting of Berry Cave 

salamander populations is occurring. 

The Tennessee Cave salamander is 

listed as Threatened by the State of 

Tennessee. This listing provides 

protection for the Berry Cave 

salamander as a State-classified 

subspecies of the Tennessee cave 

salamander under the Tennessee 

Nongame and Endangered or 

Threatened Wildlife Species 

Conservation Act of 1974 (Tennessee 

Code Annotated sections 70–8–101– 

112). Take of a listed species, as defined 

by this State legislation, is unlawful, 

and potential collectors are required to 

possess a State permit. However, many 

cave visitors and recreational cavers are 

likely unaware of the protected status of 

the Berry Cave salamander. Moreover, 

Miller and Niemiller (2005, p. 93) find 

that most recreational cavers are unable 

to properly identify salamander species, 

and even biologists misidentify larval 

spring salamanders as Tennessee cave 

salamanders. Thus, the State listing of 

the Berry Cave salamander as a 

subspecies of the Threatened Tennessee 

cave salamander may not alone provide 

adequate protection for this species. 

In summary, although the potential 

for harvesting of individuals exists in 

unmonitored caves, we have no 

information to indicate that collection 

for the pet trade or other purposes is 

occurring. Furthermore, the Tennessee 

State law discussed above is designed to 

provide State protection to the Berry 

Cave salamander as a classified 

subspecies of the Tennessee cave 

salamander, although a general lack of 

public knowledge with regard to State 

wildlife laws and common species 

misidentification may limit the State 

law’s protectiveness. Because we have 

no evidence to believe otherwise, we 

find that overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes is a low and nonimminent 

threat. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
15924 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

In a June 20, 2005, e-mail to the 

Service, Dr. Brian Miller of Middle 

Tennessee State University 

communicated concerns for parasitic 

infections in Gyrinophilus species in 

two caves. Miller and Niemiller (2006, 

p. 24) observed pervasive, raised 

nodules on the skin of all Berry Cave 

salamanders collected within the Berry 

Cave system. The population appeared 

otherwise healthy, and no individuals 

were taken for analysis (Miller and 

Niemiller 2006, p. 15). Crayfish are 

believed to be predators of the 

Tennessee cave salamander complex 

and were numerous in caves where 

injured individuals were found, but 

Miller and Niemiller (2006, p. 23) did 

not consider crayfish predation to be a 

serious threat to cave salamanders. 

In summary, we are uncertain as to 

whether disease or predation constitutes 

a demonstrable threat to Berry Cave 

salamander populations at this time. 

Because of the otherwise healthy 

appearance of individuals, we find 

disease or predation to be a minimal 

threat of low magnitude. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The Berry Cave salamander and its 

habitats are afforded some protection 

from water quality and habitat 

degradation under the Federal Clean 

Water Act and the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation’s Division of Water 

Pollution Control under the Tennessee 

Water Quality Control Act. However, as 

demonstrated under Factor A, 

degradation of habitat for this species is 

ongoing despite the protection afforded 

by these laws. These laws alone have 

not been adequate to fully protect this 

species from water quality impacts 

associated with increasing development 

and urbanization. 

The Tennessee Cave salamander was 

listed as Threatened by the State of 

Tennessee in 1994. This listing 

provided protection for the Berry Cave 

salamander as a classified subspecies of 

the Tennessee cave salamander. Under 

the Tennessee Nongame and 

Endangered or Threatened Wildlife 

Species Conservation Act of 1974 

(Tennessee Code Annotated sections 

70–8–101–112), ‘‘[I]t is unlawful for any 

person to take, attempt to take, possess, 

transport, export, process, sell or offer 

for sale or ship nongame wildlife, or for 

any common or contract carrier 

knowingly to transport or receive for 

shipment nongame wildlife.’’ Further, 

regulations included in the Tennessee 

Wildlife Resources Commission 

Proclamation 00–15 Endangered or 

Threatened Species state the following: 

‘‘Except as provided for in Tennessee 

Code Annotated, Section 70–8–106(d) 

and (e), it shall be unlawful for any 

person to take, harass, or destroy 

wildlife listed as threatened or 

endangered or otherwise to violate 

terms of Section 70–8–105(c) or to 

destroy knowingly the habitat of such 

species without due consideration of 

alternatives for the welfare of the 

species listed in (1) of this 

proclamation, or (2) the United States 

list of Endangered fauna.’’ Under these 

regulations, potential collectors of this 

species are required to have a State 

collection permit, although the 

effectiveness of this permit is uncertain 

(see Factor B analysis above). 

In summary, degradation of Berry 

Cave salamander habitat is ongoing 

despite the protection afforded by State 

and Federal laws and corresponding 

regulations. Despite these laws, 

development and associated pollution 

continue to adversely affect the species. 

Because of the vulnerability of Knox 

County populations of the Berry Cave 

salamander and the imminence of these 

threats, we find the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms to be a 

significant threat of high magnitude. 

Further, the information available to us 

at this time does not indicate that the 

magnitude or imminence of this threat 

is likely to be appreciably reduced in 

the foreseeable future. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

According to M. Niemiller (pers. 

comm., July 2010), molecular and 

morphological evidence exists of 

hybridization between the Berry Cave 

salamander and the spring salamander 

in Meades Quarry Cave. Hybridization 

between the two species may be a 

natural threat to pure Berry Cave 

salamander populations as it affects the 

genetic integrity of the species. Studies 

are underway by Ben Fitzpatrick 

(Assistant Professor, Department of 

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 

University of Tennessee) and Niemiller 

to determine the extent of hybridization 

that is occurring between taxa in this 

system. It is debatable as to whether this 

phenomenon is anthropogenically 

induced or a natural process (M. 

Niemiller, pers. comm., July 2010). 

Currently, the Berry Cave salamander 

maintains its species distinctiveness in 

spite of ongoing interbreeding and range 

overlap with spring salamanders 

(Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 5), and 

hybridization is only known to be 

occurring in Meades Quarry Cave (M. 

Niemiller, pers. comm., July 2010). 

Research indicates that there is low gene 

flow between the two species (Niemiller 

et al. 2008, p. 2), and Berry Cave 

salamanders and spring salamanders are 

infrequently observed in the same cave 

systems (Niemiller et al. 2010b, p. 13). 

The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that 

evidence of warming of the climate 

system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, p. 

30). Numerous long-term climate 

changes have been observed, including 

changes in arctic temperatures and ice, 

and widespread changes in 

precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, 

wind patterns, and aspects of extreme 

weather including droughts, heavy 

precipitation, heat waves, and the 

intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 

2007b, p. 7). While continued change is 

certain, the magnitude and rate of 

change is unknown in many cases. 

Species that are dependent on 

specialized habitat types, that are 

limited in distribution, or that have 

become restricted to the extreme 

periphery of their range will be most 

susceptible to the impacts of climate 

change. As previously mentioned, the 

Berry Cave salamander is known only 

from the Appalachian Valley and Ridge 

Province in East Tennessee within the 

Upper Tennessee River and Clinch 

River drainages in Knox, Roane, Meigs, 

and McMinn Counties, Tennessee. The 

species is believed to be confined to 

subterranean aquatic environments 

(Niemiller et al. 2010, p. 5), and has 

been documented in only eight caves 

and a roadside observation where 

individuals were presumably washed 

from a cave. Western dispersal is 

prohibited by a fault that occurs along 

the west of the East Tennessee Aquifer 

System (Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 

10). Data on recent trends and predicted 

changes for the Southeast United States 

(Karl et al. 2009, pp. 111–116) provide 

some insight for evaluating the threat of 

climate change to the species. Since 

1970, the average annual temperature of 

the region has increased by about 2 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (1.1° Celsius 

(°C)), with the greatest increases 

occurring during winter months. The 

geographic extent of areas in the 

Southeast region affected by moderate to 

severe drought has increased by 12 

percent in the spring and 14 percent in 

the summer over the past three decades 

(Karl et al. 2009, p. 111). These trends 

are expected to increase. 

Rates of warming are predicted to 

more than double in comparison to 

what the Southeast has experienced 

since 1975, with the greatest increases 

projected for summer months. 

Depending on the emissions scenario 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15925 

used for modeling change, average 

temperatures are expected to increase by 

4.5 °F to 9 °F (2.5 °C to 5 °C) by the 

2080s (Karl et al. 2009, p. 111). While 

there is considerable variability in 

rainfall predictions throughout the 

region, increases in evaporation of 

moisture from soils and loss of water by 

plants in response to warmer 

temperatures are expected to contribute 

to increased frequency, duration, and 

intensity of droughts (Karl et al. 2009, 

p. 112). If these rainfall predictions are 

accurate, streams that feed karst systems 

could experience significant decreases 

in flow volumes, lower dissolved 

oxygen content, and warmer 

temperatures. These variables could 

influence the amount and quality of 

organic input to cave systems essential 

in sustaining healthy prey populations 

for the Berry Cave salamander. 

Application of continental-scale 

climate change models to regional 

landscapes and even more local or 

‘‘step-down’’ models projecting habitat 

potential based on climatic factors, is 

informative but contains a high level of 

uncertainty when predicting future 

effects to individual species and their 

habitats. This is due to a variety of 

factors including regional weather 

patterns, local physiographic 

conditions, life stages of individual 

species, generation time of species, and 

species’ reactions to changing carbon 

dioxide levels. Therefore, the usefulness 

of models in assessing the threat of 

climate change on the Berry Cave 

salamander within its range is also 

limited. Due to a variety of factors, e.g., 

variability surrounding regional rainfall 

predictions and how these precipitation 

events would affect the species, 

uncertainty remains regarding whether 

cave systems would maintain current 

ambient temperatures and how climate 

changes might affect inflow of organic 

detritus and availability of invertebrate 

food sources; we are therefore unable to 

confidently identify climate change 

threats (or their magnitude) to the Berry 

Cave salamander. We have no evidence 

that climatic changes observed to date 

have had any adverse impact on the 

species or its habitat. 

In summary, hybridization is 

occurring between the Berry Cave 

salamander and the spring salamander 

in Meades Quarry Cave (Niemiller et al. 

2010b, p. 5), although there appears to 

be low gene flow between the two 

species (Niemiller et al. 2008, p. 2). 

Because Meades Quarry Cave is still 

believed to house the healthiest 

population (Niemiller and Miller 2010, 

p. 3) and hybridization is not known to 

be impacting Berry Cave salamander 

populations in other caves, we find this 

natural or manmade factor affecting the 

species’ continued existence to be a 

threat of low magnitude. Although 

climate change may affect the species in 

the future, we lack adequate information 

to make reasonable predictions 

regarding the extent of the impact at this 

time. The available information does not 

indicate that climate change is a 

significant threat to the Berry Cave 

salamander, or that it is likely to become 

a significant threat in the foreseeable 

future. 

Finding 

As required by the Act, we conducted 

a review of the status of the species and 

considered the five factors in assessing 

whether the Berry Cave salamander is in 

danger of extinction or likely to become 

so within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. We examined the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats faced by the Berry 

Cave salamander. We reviewed the 

petition, information available in our 

files, and other available published and 

unpublished information, and we 

consulted with species and habitat 

experts and other Federal and State 

agencies. 

This status review identified threats 

to the Berry Cave salamander 

attributable to Factors A, B, C, D, and E 

(see Table 1 below). However, ongoing 

threats are from habitat modification, 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms, and other natural and 

manmade factors (Factors A, D, and E). 

These are in the form of lye leaching in 

the Meades Quarry Cave as a result of 

past quarrying activities, a proposed 

roadway with potential to impact the 

recharge area for the Meades Quarry 

Cave system, urban development in 

Knox County, water quality impacts 

despite existing State and Federal laws, 

and hybridization between spring 

salamanders and Berry Cave 

salamanders in Meades Quarry Cave. 

Because the available evidence would 

suggest that the Berry Cave salamander 

exists in relatively low population 

densities (Miller and Niemiller 2006, p. 

15) and distribution is confined to 

subterranean waters within the 

Tennessee River and Clinch River 

watersheds (Miller and Niemiller 2008, 

p. 10), the species cannot readily 

tolerate losses of populations or even 

many individuals. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF BERRY CAVE SALAMANDER STATUS AND THREATS BY DOCUMENTED POPULATION

Population locality Current status Regional/local threats 

Aycock Spring Cave (Knox County, TN) ................................. Extant ................... Factors A, B, and D: Urban development, potential for unregulated take, and inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms (ongoing threat). 

Berry Cave (Roane County, TN) ............................................. Extant ................... Factor C: Parasites (perceived threat). 

Blythe Ferry Cave (Meigs County, TN) ................................... Unknown (last 

obs. 1975).

Unknown. 

Christian Cave (Knox County, TN) .......................................... Extant ................... Factors A, B, and D: Urban development, potential for unregulated take, and inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms (ongoing threat). 

Fifth Cave (Knox County, TN) ................................................. Extant ................... Factors A and D: Proposed roadway, urban development, 

and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (ongoing threat). 

Meades River Cave (Knox County, TN) .................................. Extant ................... Factors A and D: Proposed roadway, urban development, 

and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (ongoing threat). 

Meades Quarry Cave (Knox County, TN) ............................... Extant ................... Factors A, D, and E: Proposed roadway, urban development, inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, lye 

leaching, and other natural and manmade factors (ongoing threat). 

Mudflats Cave (Knox County, TN) ........................................... Extant ................... Factors A, B, and D: Urban development, potential for unregulated take, and inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms (ongoing threat). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
15926 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF BERRY CAVE SALAMANDER STATUS AND THREATS BY DOCUMENTED POPULATION—Continued 

Population locality Current status Regional/local threats 

Roadside ditch (McMinn County, TN) ..................................... Unknown (last 

obs. 1953).

Factors A and D: Urban development and inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms (ongoing threat if the 

population exists). 

Development is largely responsible for 

pollution entering cave systems where 

Berry Cave salamanders occur and 

could additionally cause fluctuations in 

organic matter input and hydrologic 

levels as a result of sediment deposition, 

higher temperatures in streams that 

recharge systems when trees are 

removed from riparian zones (forested 

land along streams and rivers), and an 

increase in toxic runoff. The proposed 

James White Parkway project has the 

potential to directly impact Berry Cave 

salamander populations within the 

Meades Quarry Cave system (Meades 

Quarry, Meades River, and Fifth caves) 

by increased siltation from construction, 

creation or closures of cave openings by 

blasting activities that would affect 

organic input into the system, and toxic 

roadway runoff into sinkholes that 

recharge the Meades Quarry Cave 

system. We have determined that these 

factors could lead to a decline in Berry 

Cave salamander abundance because the 

majority of documented populations are 

located within the urban growth 

boundary of metropolitan Knoxville, 

and Meades Quarry Cave houses the 

largest population known. 

On the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that the petitioned action, to list the 

Berry Cave salamander under the Act is 

warranted. We will make a 

determination on the status of the 

species as endangered or threatened 

when we prepare a proposed listing 

determination. However, as explained 

in more detail below, an immediate 

proposal of a regulation implementing 

this action is precluded by higher 

priority listing actions, and progress is 

being made to add or remove qualified 

species from the Lists of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 

Emergency Listing 

We reviewed the available 

information to determine if the existing 

and foreseeable threats render the 

species at risk of extinction now such 

that issuing an emergency regulation 

temporarily listing the species in 

accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the 

Act is warranted. We determined that 

issuing an emergency regulation 

temporarily listing the species is not 

warranted at this time because recent 

studies have documented two new 

populations of Berry Cave salamanders 

(Aycock Spring and Christian caves) 

and have resulted in observations of 

robust populations at historical sites 

previously reported to be in decline 

(Miller and Niemiller 2008, p. 1). 

Furthermore, the threat to Berry Cave 

salamander populations from 

construction of the James White 

Parkway is being partially addressed by 

TDOT’s proposal for a fully accesscontrolled facility and the design of 

alignment alternatives to purposefully 

avoid or minimize impacts to sinkholes 

that recharge the Meades Quarry Cave 

system (South Knoxville Boulevard EIS 

2010, pp. 10, 43). However, if at any 

time we determine that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the Berry Cave salamander is 

warranted, we will initiate the action at 

that time. 

Listing Priority Number 

The Service adopted guidelines on 

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098) to 

establish a rational system for utilizing 

available resources for the highest 

priority species when adding species to 

the Lists of Endangered or Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants or eclassifying 

species listed as threatened to 

endangered status. These guidelines, 

titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened 

Species Listing and Recovery Priority 

Guidelines,’’ address the immediacy and 

magnitude of threats, and the level of 

taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning 

priority in descending order to 

monotypic genera (genus with one 

species), full species, and subspecies (or 

equivalently, distinct population 

segments of vertebrates). Using these 

guidelines, we assign each candidate a 

listing priority number (LPN) of 1 to 12, 

depending on the magnitude of the 

threats (high or moderate to low), 

immediacy of threats (imminent or 

nonimminent), and taxonomic status of 

the species. The lower the LPN, the 

higher the listing priority (that is, a 

species with an LPN of 1 would have 

the highest listing priority). We assigned 

the Berry Cave salamander an LPN of 8 

based on our finding that the species 

faces threats that are of moderate 

magnitude and are imminent. These 

threats include the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range, and 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. Our rationale for assigning 

the Berry Cave salamander a LPN of 8 

is outlined below. 

Under the Service’s LPN guidelines, 

the magnitude of threat is the first 

criterion we look at when establishing a 

listing priority. The guidelines indicate 

that species with the highest magnitude 

of threat are those species facing the 

greatest threats to their continued 

existence. These species receive the 

highest listing priority. We consider the 

threats facing the Berry Cave 

salamander to be moderate in 

magnitude. Several of the threats to the 

species (roadway construction, 

development in proximity to 

populations, and impacts to water 

quality) occur across the majority of the 

species’ range. Due to its limited 

geographic range within subterranean 

waters of the Tennessee and Clinch 

River systems, impacts to these systems 

could have a detrimental effect on Berry 

Cave salamander populations. Habitat 

degradation associated with residential, 

business, and commercial development 

has high potential to adversely affect 

Berry Cave salamander populations by 

impacting water quality. While water 

quality regulations such as the Clean 

Water Act and the Tennessee Water 

Quality Control Act are designed to 

protect aquatic systems, stream 

mitigation practices only provide for 

loss of linear feet of stream and do not 

consider water quality concerns or 

impacts to affected species. Six of the 

eight caves where the species has been 

documented are within Knoxville’s 

urban boundary (Niemiller and Miller 

2010, p. 2) and are highly susceptible to 

future development activities. While the 

threats facing the species are numerous 

and in some cases widespread, we 

decided they were of moderate, rather 

than high, magnitude because the 

salamander still occurs in several 

different cave systems, and existing 

populations appear stable. Nonetheless, 

intensification of these threats could 

threaten the long-term viability of the 

species. 

Under our LPN guidelines, the second 

criterion we consider in assigning a 

listing priority is the immediacy of 

threats. This criterion is intended to 

ensure that the species that face actual, 

identifiable threats are given priority 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15927 

over those for which threats are only 

potential or for those that are 

intrinsically vulnerable but are not 

known to be presently facing such 

threats. The threats are imminent 

because we have factual information 

that the threats are identifiable and ongoing, and that they often overlap or 

occur throughout most of the species’ 

range. These actual, identifiable threats 

are covered in detail under the 

discussion of Factors A and D of this 

finding and currently include chronic 

lye leaching in the Meades Quarry Cave 

due to past quarrying activities, 

highway development and urban growth 

in Knox County, and water quality 

impacts despite existing State and 

Federal laws. 

The third criterion in our LPN 

guidelines is intended to devote 

resources to those species representing 

highly distinctive or isolated gene pools 

as reflected by taxonomy. The Berry 

Cave salamander is a valid taxon at the 

species level, and therefore receives a 

higher priority than subspecies, but a 

lower priority than species in a 

monotypic genus. 

In summary, the Berry Cave 

salamander faces imminent threats of 

moderate magnitude, and is a valid 

taxon at the species level. Thus, in 

accordance with our LPN guidelines, we 

have assigned the Berry Cave 

salamander an LPN of 8. 

We will continue to monitor the 

threats to, and status of, the Berry Cave 

salamander on an annual basis, and 

should the magnitude or the imminence 

of the threats change, we will revisit our 

assessment of the LPN. 

Work on a proposed listing 

determination for the Berry Cave 

salamander is precluded by work on 

higher priority listing actions with 

absolute statutory, court-ordered, or 

court-approved deadlines and on final 

listing determinations for those species 

that were proposed for listing with 

funds from Fiscal Year 2011. This work 

includes all the actions listed in the 

tables below under expeditious 

progress. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

Preclusion is a function of the listing 

priority of a species in relation to the 

resources that are available and the cost 

and relative priority of competing 

demands for those resources. Thus, in 

any given fiscal year (FY), multiple 

factors dictate whether it will be 

possible to undertake work on a listing 

proposal regulation or whether 

promulgation of such a proposal is 

precluded by higher-priority listing 

actions. 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. The appropriation for the 

Listing Program is available to support 

work involving the following listing 

actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 

90-day and 12-month findings on 

petitions to add species to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists) or to change the status 

of a species from threatened to 

endangered; annual ‘‘resubmitted’’ 

petition findings on prior warrantedbut-precluded petition findings as 

required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of 

the Act; critical habitat petition 

findings; proposed and final rules 

designating critical habitat; and 

litigation-related, administrative, and 

program-management functions 

(including preparing and allocating 

budgets, responding to Congressional 

and public inquiries, and conducting 

public outreach regarding listing and 

critical habitat). The work involved in 

preparing various listing documents can 

be extensive and may include, but is not 

limited to: Gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information into 

final rules. The number of listing 

actions that we can undertake in a given 

year also is influenced by the 

complexity of those listing actions; that 

is, more complex actions generally are 

more costly. The median cost for 

preparing and publishing a 90-day 

finding is $39,276; for a 12-month 

finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule 

with critical habitat, $345,000; and for 

a final listing rule with critical habitat, 

$305,000. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In 

addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal 

year since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds that may be 

expended for the Listing Program, equal 

to the amount expressly appropriated 

for that purpose in that fiscal year. This 

cap was designed to prevent funds 

appropriated for other functions under 

the Act (for example, recovery funds for 

removing species from the Lists), or for 

other Service programs, from being used 

for Listing Program actions (see House 

Report 105–163, 105th Congress, 1st 

Session, July 1, 1997). 

Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget 

has included a critical habitat subcap to 

ensure that some funds are available for 

other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The 

critical habitat designation subcap will 

ensure that some funding is available to 

address other listing activities’’ (House 

Report No. 107–103, 107th Congress, 1st 

Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and 

each year until FY 2006, the Service has 

had to use virtually the entire critical 

habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical 

habitat, and consequently none of the 

critical habitat subcap funds have been 

available for other listing activities. In 

some FYs since 2006, we have been able 

to use some of the critical habitat 

subcap funds to fund proposed listing 

determinations for high-priority 

candidate species. In other FYs, while 

we were unable to use any of the critical 

habitat subcap funds to fund proposed 

listing determinations, we did use some 

of this money to fund the critical habitat 

portion of some proposed listing 

determinations so that the proposed 

listing determination and proposed 

critical habitat designation could be 

combined into one rule, thereby being 

more efficient in our work. At this time, 

for FY 2011, we do not know if we will 

be able to use some of the critical 

habitat subcap funds to fund proposed 

listing determinations. 

We make our determinations of 

preclusion on a nationwide basis to 

ensure that the species most in need of 

listing will be addressed first and also 

because we allocate our listing budget 

on a nationwide basis. Through the 

listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, 

and the amount of funds needed to 

address court-mandated critical habitat 

designations, Congress and the courts 

have in effect determined the amount of 

money available for other listing 

activities nationwide. Therefore, the 

funds in the listing cap, other than those 

needed to address court-mandated 

critical habitat for already listed species, 

set the limits on our determinations of 

preclusion and expeditious progress. 

Congress identified the availability of 

resources as the only basis for deferring 

the initiation of a rulemaking that is 

warranted. The Conference Report 

accompanying Pub. L. 97–304 

(Endangered Species Act Amendments 

of 1982), which established the current 

statutory deadlines and the warrantedbut-precluded finding, states that the 

amendments were ‘‘not intended to 

allow the Secretary to delay 

commencing the rulemaking process for 

any reason other than that the existence 

of pending or imminent proposals to list 

species subject to a greater degree of 

threat would make allocation of 

resources to such a petition [that is, for 

a lower-ranking species] unwise.’’ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
15928 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Although that statement appeared to 

refer specifically to the ‘‘to the 

maximum extent practicable’’ limitation 

on the 90-day deadline for making a 

‘‘substantial information’’ finding, that 

finding is made at the point when the 

Service is deciding whether or not to 

commence a status review that will 

determine the degree of threats facing 

the species, and therefore the analysis 

underlying the statement is more 

relevant to the use of the warranted-butprecluded finding, which is made when 

the Service has already determined the 

degree of threats facing the species and 

is deciding whether or not to commence 

a rulemaking. 

In FY 2011, on March 2, 2011, 

Congress passed a continuing resolution 

which provides funding at the FY 2010 

enacted level through March 18, 2011. 

Until Congress appropriates funds for 

FY 2011 at a different level, we will 

fund listing work based on the FY 2010 

amount. Thus, at this time in FY 2011, 

the Service anticipates an appropriation 

of $22,103,000 for the listing program 

based on FY 2010 appropriations. Of 

that, the Service anticipates needing to 

dedicate $11,632,000 for determinations 

of critical habitat for already listed 

species. Also $500,000 is appropriated 

for foreign species listings under the 

Act. The Service thus has $9,971,000 

available to fund work in the following 

categories: compliance with court orders 

and court-approved settlement 

agreements requiring that petition 

findings or listing determinations be 

completed by a specific date; section 4 

(of the Act) listing actions with absolute 

statutory deadlines; essential litigationrelated, administrative, and listing 

program-management functions; and 

high-priority listing actions for some of 

our candidate species. In FY 2010, the 

Service received many new petitions 

and a single petition to list 404 species. 

The receipt of petitions for a large 

number of species is consuming the 

Service’s listing funding that is not 

dedicated to meeting court-ordered 

commitments. Absent some ability to 

balance effort among listing duties 

under existing funding levels, it is 

unlikely that the Service will be able to 

initiate any new listing determination 

for candidate species in FY 2011. 

In 2009, the responsibility for listing 

foreign species under the Act was 

transferred from the Division of 

Scientific Authority, International 

Affairs Program, to the Endangered 

Species Program. Therefore, starting in 

FY 2010, we used a portion of our 

funding to work on the actions 

described above for listing actions 

related to foreign species. In FY 2011, 

we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work 

on listing actions for foreign species 

which reduces funding available for 

domestic listing actions; however, 

currently only $500,000 has been 

allocated for this function. Although 

there are no foreign species issues 

included in our high-priority listing 

actions at this time, many actions have 

statutory or court-approved settlement 

deadlines, thus increasing their priority. 

The budget allocations for each specific 

listing action are identified in the 

Service’s FY 2011 Allocation Table (part 

of our record). 

For the above reasons, funding a 

proposed listing determination for the 

Berry Cave Salamander, which has an 

LPN of 8, is precluded by court-ordered 

and court-approved settlement 

agreements, listing actions with absolute 

statutory deadlines, and work on 

proposed listing determinations for 

those candidate species with a higher 

listing priority (i.e., candidate species 

with LPNs of 1 to 7). 

Based on our September 21, 1983, 

guidelines for assigning an LPN for each 

candidate species (48 FR 43098), we 

have a significant number of species 

with a LPN of 2. Using these guidelines, 

we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 

to 12, depending on the magnitude of 

threats (high or moderate to low), 

immediacy of threats (imminent or 

nonimminent), and taxonomic status of 

the species (in order of priority: 

monotypic genus (a species that is the 

sole member of a genus); species; or part 

of a species (subspecies, distinct 

population segment, or significant 

portion of the range)). The lower the 

listing priority number, the higher the 

listing priority (that is, a species with an 

LPN of 1 would have the highest listing 

priority). 

Because of the large number of highpriority species, we have further ranked 

the candidate species with an LPN of 2 

by using the following extinction-risk 

type criteria: International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, 

Heritage rank (provided by 

NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 

(provided by NatureServe), and species 

currently with fewer than 50 

individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. 

Those species with the highest IUCN 

rank (critically endangered), the highest 

Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 

threat rank (substantial, imminent 

threats), and currently with fewer than 

50 individuals, or fewer than 4 

populations, originally comprised a 

group of approximately 40 candidate 

species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate 

species have had the highest priority to 

receive funding to work on a proposed 

listing determination. As we work on 

proposed and final listing rules for those 

40 candidates, we apply the ranking 

criteria to the next group of candidates 

with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the 

next set of highest priority candidate 

species. Finally, proposed rules for 

reclassification of threatened species to 

endangered are lower priority, because 

as listed species, they are already 

afforded the protection of the Act and 

implementing regulations. However, for 

efficiency reasons, we may choose to 

work on a proposed rule to reclassify a 

species to endangered if we can 

combine this with work that is subject 

to a court-determined deadline. 

With our workload so much bigger 

than the amount of funds we have to 

accomplish it, it is important that we be 

as efficient as possible in our listing 

process. Therefore, as we work on 

proposed rules for the highest priority 

species in the next several years, we are 

preparing multi-species proposals when 

appropriate, and these may include 

species with lower priority if they 

overlap geographically or have the same 

threats as a species with an LPN of 2. 

In addition, we take into consideration 

the availability of staff resources when 

we determine which high-priority 

species will receive funding to 

minimize the amount of time and 

resources required to complete each 

listing action. 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

must also demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add and 

remove qualified species to and from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. As with our 

‘‘precluded’’ finding, the evaluation of 

whether progress in adding qualified 

species to the Lists has been expeditious 

is a function of the resources available 

for listing and the competing demands 

for those funds. (Although we do not 

discuss it in detail here, we are also 

making expeditious progress in 

removing species from the list under the 

Recovery program in light of the 

resource available for delisting, which is 

funded by a separate line item in the 

budget of the Endangered Species 

Program. So far during FY 2011, we 

have completed one delisting rule.) 

Given the limited resources available for 

listing, we find that we are making 

expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the 

Listing Program. This progress included 

preparing and publishing the following 

determinations: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15929 

FY 2011 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication 

date Title Actions FR pages 

10/6/2010 ................ Endangered Status for the Altamaha Spinymussel and 

Designation of Critical Habitat.

Proposed Listing, Endangered ........... 75 FR 61664–61690 

10/7/2010 ................ 12-month Finding on a Petition to list the Sacramento 

Splittail as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

75 FR 62070–62095 

10/28/2010 .............. Endangered Status and Designation of Critical Habitat 

for Spikedace and Loach Minnow.

Proposed Listing, Endangered 

(uplisting).

75 FR 66481–66552 

11/2/2010 ................ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Bay Springs Salamander as Endangered.Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial.

75 FR 67341–67343 

11/2/2010 ................ Determination of Endangered Status for the Georgia 

Pigtoe Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, and Rough 

Hornsnail and Designation of Critical Habitat.

Final Listing, Endangered .................. 75 FR 67511–67550 

11/2/2010 ................ Listing the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox as Endangered .... Proposed Listing, Endangered ........... 75 FR 67551–67583 

11/4/2010 ................ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Cirsium wrightii 

(Wright’s Marsh Thistle) as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 67925–67944 

12/14/2010 .............. Endangered Status for Dunes Sagebrush Lizard ............. Proposed Listing, Endangered ........... 75 FR77801–77817 

12/14/2010 .............. 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the North American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened.Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 78029–78061 

12/14/2010 .............. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Sonoran Population of the Desert Tortoise as Endangered or 

Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 78093–78146 

12/15/2010 .............. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus 

microcymbus and Astragalus schmolliae as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

75 FR 78513–78556 

12/28/2010 .............. Listing Seven Brazilian Bird Species as Endangered 

Throughout Their Range.

Final Listing, Endangered .................. 75 FR 81793–81815 

1/4/2011 .................. 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Red Knot subspecies Calidris canutus roselaari as Endangered.Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial.

76 FR 304–311 

1/19/2011 ................ Endangered Status for the Sheepnose and 

Spectaclecase Mussels.

Proposed Listing, Endangered ........... 76 FR 3392–3420 

2/10/2011 ................ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Pacific Walrus 

as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

76 FR 7634–7679 

2/17/2011 ................ 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Sand Verbena 

Moth as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

76 FR 9309–9318 

2/22/2011 ................ Determination of Threatened Status for the New Zealand-Australia Distinct Population Segment of the 

Southern Rockhopper Penguin.

Final Listing, Threatened .................... 76 FR 9681–9692 

2/22/2011 ................ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Solanum 

conocarpum (marron bacora) as Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

76 FR 9722–9733 

2/23/2011 ................ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Thorne’s 

Hairstreak Butterfly as Endangered.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Not warranted.

76 FR 991–10003 

2/23/2011 ................ 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus 

hamiltonii, Penstemon flowersii, Eriogonum soredium, 

Lepidium ostleri, and Trifolium friscanum as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded & Not 

Warranted.

76 FR 10166–10203 

2/24/2011 ................ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Wild Plains 

Bison or Each of Four Distinct Population Segments 

as Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial.

76 FR 10299–10310 

2/24/2011 ................ 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Unsilvered 

Fritillary Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial.

76 FR 10310–10319 

3/8/2011 .................. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Mt. Charleston 

Blue Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 12-month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded.

76 FR 12667–12683 

3/8/2011 .................. 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Texas Kangaroo 

Rat as Endangered or Threatened.

Notice of 90-day Petition Finding, 

Substantial.

76 FR 12683–12690 

3/10/2011 ................ Initiation of Status Review for Longfin Smelt ................... Notice of Status Review ..................... 76 FR 13121–31322 

Our expeditious progress also 

includes work on listing actions that we 

funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but 

have not yet been completed to date. 

These actions are listed below. Actions 

in the top section of the table are being 

conducted under a deadline set by a 

court. Actions in the middle section of 

the table are being conducted to meet 

statutory timelines, that is, timelines 

required under the Act. Actions in the 

bottom section of the table are highpriority listing actions. These actions 

include work primarily on species with 

an LPN of 2, and, as discussed above, 

selection of these species is partially 

based on available staff resources, and 

when appropriate, include species with 

a lower priority if they overlap 

geographically or have the same threats 

as the species with the high priority. 

Including these species together in the 

same proposed rule results in 

considerable savings in time and 

funding, when compared to preparing 

separate proposed rules for each of them 

in the future. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
15930 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action 

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement 

Mountain plover 4 ................................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Hermes copper butterfly 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

4 parrot species (military macaw, yellow-billed parrot, red-crowned parrot, scarlet macaw) 5 ............................. 12-month petition finding. 

4 parrot species (blue-headed macaw, great green macaw, grey-cheeked parakeet, hyacinth macaw) 5 .......... 12-month petition finding. 

4 parrot species (crimson shining parrot, white cockatoo, Philippine cockatoo, yellow-crested cockatoo) 5 ....... 12-month petition finding. 

Utah prairie dog (uplisting) .................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Actions with Statutory Deadlines 

Casey’s june beetle ............................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

6 Birds from Eurasia .............................................................................................................................................. Final listing determination. 

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador ......................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Queen Charlotte goshawk ..................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter, chucky madtom, and laurel 

dace) 4.

Final listing determination. 

Ozark hellbender 4 ................................................................................................................................................. Final listing determination. 

Altamaha spinymussel 3 ......................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket), Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue), 

and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia)) 4.

Final listing determination. 

Salmon crested cockatoo ...................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia ................................................................................................................................... Final listing determination. 

Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Marine Fisheries Service) 5 ..................................................................... Final listing determination. 

2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) 5 ........................................................................................ Final listing determination. 

CA golden trout 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Black-footed albatross ........................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Kokanee—Lake Sammamish population 1 ............................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 1 ............................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Northern leopard frog ............................................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Tehachapi slender salamander ............................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Coqui Llanero ........................................................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding./ 

Proposed listing. 

Dusky tree vole ...................................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

3 MT invertebrates (meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp. 3, Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 

species petition.

12-month petition finding. 

5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) pusilla, 

Penstemon gibbensii) from 206 species petition.

12-month petition finding. 

Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) ....................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 3 ..................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding.

Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species petition) 5 ............................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Gopher tortoise—eastern population ..................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) ............................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 4 .......................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475 species petition) ........... 12-month petition finding. 

2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species petition) .................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 species 

petition).

12-month petition finding. 

5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 species petition) ............................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

14 parrots (foreign species) ................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Berry Cave salamander 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Striped Newt 1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Fisher—Northern Rocky Mountain Range 1 .......................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Mohave Ground Squirrel 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 3 ........................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Western gull-billed tern .......................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 4 ........................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

HI yellow-faced bees ............................................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Giant Palouse earthworm ...................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Whitebark pine ....................................................................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) 1 .......................................................................................................... 12-month petition finding. 

Ashy storm-petrel 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 12-month petition finding. 

Honduran emerald ................................................................................................................................................. 12-month petition finding. 

Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover 1 .................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Eagle Lake trout 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Smooth-billed ani 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species (snails and slugs) 1 ................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) ......................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Peary caribou ......................................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly ................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Spring pygmy sunfish ............................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 15931 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 AND FY 2011 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

Bay skipper ............................................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Spot-tailed earless lizard ....................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Eastern small-footed bat ........................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Northern long-eared bat ........................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Prairie chub ............................................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

10 species of Great Basin butterfly ....................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

6 sand dune (scarab) beetles ................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Golden-winged warbler 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

404 Southeast species .......................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Franklin’s bumble bee 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

2 Idaho snowflies (straight snowfly & Idaho snowfly) 4 ......................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

American eel 4 ........................................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Gila monster (Utah population) 4 ........................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Arapahoe snowfly 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

Leona’s little blue 4 ................................................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Aztec gilia 5 ............................................................................................................................................................ 90-day petition finding. 

White-tailed ptarmigan 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

San Bernardino flying squirrel 5 ............................................................................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

Bicknell’s thrush 5 ................................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Chimpanzee ........................................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

Sonoran talussnail 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

2 AZ Sky Island plants (Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis imberbis) 5 ................................................................. 90-day petition finding. 

I’iwi 5 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 90-day petition finding. 

High-Priority Listing Actions 

19 Oahu candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9) ..... Proposed listing. 

19 Maui-Nui candidate species 2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8) Proposed listing. 

2 Arizona springsnails 2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)) ............................... Proposed listing. 

Chupadera springsnail 2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2)) ............................................................................. Proposed listing. 

8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell (LPN 

= 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN 

= 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 4.

Proposed listing. 

Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and white bluffs bladderpod (LPN = 9) 4 ........................................................... Proposed listing. 

Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) 4 ..................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) 4 ...................................................... Proposed listing. 

Diamond darter (LPN = 2) 4 ................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) 4 ....................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (LPN = 2) 5 ................................................................................................. Proposed listing. 

Miami blue (LPN = 3) 3 .......................................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2) .......................................................................................................................... Proposed listing. 

4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) 3.Proposed listing. 

5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom springsnail 

(LPN = 2), Phantom Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod (LPN = 2)) 3.

Proposed listing. 

2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River rose-mallow 

(Hibiscus dasycalyx) (LPN = 2)) 3.

Proposed listing. 

4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis) (LPN = 3), Fickeisen plains cactus 

(Pediocactus peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN = 3), Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron lemmonii) (LPN = 8), 

Gierisch mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii) (LPN = 2)) 5.

Proposed listing. 

FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) 3 ................................................................................................................................. Proposed listing. 

3 Southern FL plants (Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea corallicola) (LPN = 2), shellmound applecactus 

(Harrisia (=Cereus) aboriginum (=gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape Sable thoroughwort (Chromolaena frustrata) 

(LPN = 2)) 5.

Proposed listing. 

21 Big Island (HI) species 5 (includes 8 candidate species—5 plants & 3 animals; 4 with LPN = 2, 1 with LPN 

= 3, 1 with LPN = 4, 2 with LPN = 8).

Proposed listing. 

12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 subspecies of pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN = 3), 

streaked horned lark (LPN = 3), Taylor’s checkerspot (LPN = 3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8)) 3.

Proposed listing. 

2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside pearlymussel (LPN = 2) 5 ....................................... Proposed listing. 

Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) 5 ............................................................................................................. Proposed listing. 

1Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 

2Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and competing 

priorities, these actions are still being developed. 3Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds. 

4Funded with FY 2010 funds. 

5Funded with FY 2011 funds. 

We have endeavored to make our 

listing actions as efficient and timely as 

possible, given the requirements of the 

relevant law and regulations, and 

constraints relating to workload and 

personnel. We are continually 

considering ways to streamline 

processes or achieve economies of scale, 

such as by batching related actions 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
15932 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

together. Given our limited budget for 

implementing section 4 of the Act, these 

actions described above collectively 

constitute expeditious progress. 

The Berry Cave salamander will be 

added to the list of candidate species 

upon publication of this 12-month 

finding. We will continue to monitor the 

status of this species as new information 

becomes available. This review will 

determine if a change in status is 

warranted, including the need to make 

prompt use of emergency listing 

procedures. 

We intend that any proposed listing 

action for the Berry Cave salamander 

will be as accurate as possible. 

Therefore, we will continue to accept 

additional information and comments 

from all concerned governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested party 

concerning this finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Tennessee Ecological Services 

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Tennessee 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this section is 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: March 8, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6347 Filed 3–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

[Docket No. 100104003–1195–02] 

RIN 0648–AY49 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Proposed Listing of Nine Distinct 

Population Segments of Loggerhead 

Sea Turtles as Endangered or 

Threatened 

AGENCIES: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce; United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 6-month 

extension of the deadline for a final 

listing decision. 

SUMMARY: We (NMFS and USFWS; also 

collectively referred to as the Services) 

are extending the date by which a final 

determination will be made regarding 

the March 16, 2010, proposed rule to list 

nine Distinct Population Segments 

(DPS) of loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta 

caretta, as endangered or threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (ESA). We are taking 

this action because substantial 

disagreement exists regarding the 

interpretation of the existing data on 

status and trends and its relevance to 

the assessment of risk of extinction to 

the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of 

the loggerhead turtle. Additionally, 

considerable disagreement exists 

regarding the magnitude and immediacy 

of the fisheries bycatch threat and 

measures to reduce this threat to the 

Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of the 

loggerhead turtle. We are soliciting new 

information or analyses that will help 

clarify these issues. Comments 

previously submitted need not be 

resubmitted as they already have been 

incorporated into the public record and 

will be fully considered in the final rule. 

The Services believe that allowing an 

additional 6 months to evaluate and 

assess the best scientific and 

commercial data available would better 

inform our final determination on the 

listing status of the nine proposed DPSs 

of the loggerhead turtle. 

DATES: All public comments must be 

received by April 11, 2011. A final 

determination on this listing action will 

be made no later than September 16, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the RIN 0648–AY49, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: NMFS National Sea Turtle 

Coordinator, Attn: Loggerhead Proposed 

Listing Rule, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13657, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or 

USFWS National Sea Turtle 

Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 

200, Jacksonville, FL 32256. 

• Fax: To the attention of NMFS 

National Sea Turtle Coordinator at 301– 

713–0376 or USFWS National Sea 

Turtle Coordinator at 904–731–3045. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS and USFWS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter N/A in the 

required fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. The proposed 

rule and other materials relating to this 

proposal can be found on the NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources Web site 

at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

species/turtles/loggerhead.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Schroeder, NMFS (ph. 301– 

713–1401, fax 301–713–4060, e-mail 

barbara.schroeder@noaa.gov), Sandy 

MacPherson, USFWS (ph. 904–731– 

3336, fax 904–731–3045, e-mail 

sandy_macpherson@fws.gov), Marta 

Nammack, NMFS (ph. 301–713–1401, 

fax 301–713–4060, e-mail 

marta.nammack@noaa.gov), or Lorna 

Patrick, USFWS (ph. 850–215–7438, fax 

850–763–2177, e-mail 

lorna_patrick@fws.gov). Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

1–800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, 

7 days a week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS