![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Kenk's Amphipod, Virginia Well Amphipod, and the Copepod Acanthocyclops columbiensis as Endangered
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 175)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51766-51770]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11se07-24]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List Kenk's Amphipod, Virginia Well Amphipod, and the
Copepod Acanthocyclops columbiensis as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the Kenk's amphipod (Stygobromus
kenki), the Virginia well amphipod (Stygobromus phreaticus), and the
copepod Acanthocyclops columbiensis as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find the petition does not provide
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing of these three crustaceans may be warranted. Therefore, we will
not initiate a further status review in response to this petition. We
ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes
available concerning the status of these species, or threats to them or
their habitat, at any time. This information will help us monitor and
encourage the conservation of these species.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on September 11,
2007.
ADDRESSES: The supporting file for this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 177
Admiral Cochrane Drive, Annapolis, MD 21401. New information,
materials, comments, or questions concerning this species may be
submitted to us at any time at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Wolflin, Field Supervisor,
Chesapeake Bay Field Office (see ADDRESSES) (telephone 410-573-4574;
facsimile 410-269-0832). People who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act)
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that the Service make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We base this finding on information
provided in the petition, supporting
[[Page 51767]]
information submitted with the petition (and determined to be reliable
after review), and information available in our files or otherwise
available to us at the time we make the determination. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our
receipt of the petition and promptly publish our notice of the finding
in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly commence a status review of the species.
In making this finding, we relied on information provided by Dr.
Richard Mitchell and Mr. Rob Gordon (herein referred to as ``the
petitioners'') in the initial petition and petition supplement that we
determined to be reliable after reviewing sources referenced in the
petition, and information otherwise available in our files at the time
of the petition review. We evaluated this information in accordance
with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process of making a 90-day finding under
section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Sec. 424.14(b) of our regulations is
limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition
meets the ``substantial [scientific or commercial] information''
threshold. The substantiality test is applied only to the reliable
information supporting the petition.
On March 27, 2001, we received a petition dated March 20, 2001,
from Dr. Richard Mitchell to list as endangered: Kenk's amphipod
(Stygobromus kenki); Virginia well amphipod (Stygobromus phreaticus);
and a copepod with no common name (Acanthocyclops columbiensis), which
we refer to by its scientific name in this document. In this document,
we will collectively refer to these three crustaceans as the three
invertebrates. The Service received a supplement to this petition dated
June 26, 2001, from Mr. Rob Gordon of the National Wilderness
Institute.
Action on the petition and supplement was precluded by court orders
and settlement agreements for other listing actions that required
nearly all of our listing funds for fiscal year 2001. However, the
Service did evaluate the need for emergency listing based on the
information provided in the initial petition and the supplement and
determined that the threats described did not constitute immediate
threats of a magnitude that would justify emergency listing. The
Service sent letters to Dr. Mitchell on April 17 and June 14, 2001, and
to Mr. Gordon on August 1, 2001, explaining this determination.
Species Information
Amphipods of the genus Stygobromus occur in groundwater or
groundwater-related habitats (for example, caves, seeps, small springs,
wells, interstices, and rarely deep lakes). They are small crustaceans
modified for survival in these subterranean habitats; they are
generally eyeless and unpigmented (Holsinger 1978, pp. 1-2). Members of
this genus occur only in fresh water and belong to the family
Crangonyctidae, the largest family of freshwater amphipods in North
America. Both Kenk's amphipod and Virginia well amphipod were described
by Dr. John R. Holsinger (Holsinger 1978, pp. 39-42, 98-101) and occur
in seeps and springs. The Kenk's amphipod was historically reported
(tentative identification) from a well in northern Virginia, and the
Virginia well amphipod was reported historically from two wells in
northern Virginia. The specific name phreaticus indicates that this
species is most likely to be found in deeper groundwater habitats. Both
species can be found in dead leaves or fine sediment submerged in the
waters of their spring-seep outflows (Holsinger 1978, p. 130). The two
sites mentioned in the petitions and the additional four known sites
for Kenk's amphipod are seeps in the Rock Creek drainage in Washington,
DC, and Montgomery County, MD (Feller 2005, p. 11). The only known
extant site for Virginia well amphipod is a seep in a ravine on Fort
Belvoir, a U.S. Army installation in Fairfax County, VA.
Acanthocyclops columbiensis is a crustacean of the subclass
Copepoda. Copepods are generally microscopic and, as a group, are
widely distributed in a variety of freshwater and marine habitats. A.
columbiensis was described by Dr. Janet W. Reid (Reid 1990, pp. 175-
180). The species has been found in acidic pools below seeps or springs
at two locations in Prince Georges County, MD: a spring at Oxon Hill
Farm Park and a seep at Fort Stanton Park. Both parks are administered
by the National Park Service (NPS). No status survey has been conducted
for the species, and it is likely that it will be found at additional
locations, as were related species in brackish wetlands (Reid 2001;
Palmer 2001).
To our knowledge, the taxonomy of the three invertebrates has never
been challenged, indicating that they are valid species.
Threats Analysis
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A)
Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In making this
finding, we evaluated whether threats to the three invertebrates
presented in the petition and identified in other information available
to us may pose a concern with respect to the species' survival. Our
evaluation of these threats is presented below. In the discussion
below, we have placed the threats listed in the petition under the most
appropriate listing factor.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
the Species' Habitat or Range
General
The petitioners state that rapid commercial and residential
development over the last 20 years in the metropolitan Washington, DC,
area has destroyed numerous seeps, springs, and bogs associated with
the Coastal Plain and Piedmont elements of the Upper Potomac River and
its tributaries. Associated with this development are runoff and
pollution that further degrade the habitat of these unique endemic
invertebrates. The petitioners assert that the groundwater table has
lowered drastically and wells, springs, and seeps have dried in the
last 100 years. The petitioners claim that, currently, little habitat
remains for the three invertebrates except in heavily used parks and on
military reservations. The petitioners assert that given their limited
distribution and highly restricted habitats, the three invertebrates
could be driven to extinction by relatively small human disturbances
such as a single construction project.
Kenk's Amphipod
The petition supplement states that S. kenki is currently known
from only two sites (East Spring and Sherrill Drive Spring) in Rock
Creek Park (administered by NPS), and it indicates
[[Page 51768]]
that a species existing in a park is not, of itself, adequate
protection. The petitioners state that a macroinvertebrate survey of
Rock Creek (no citation provided, but identified by the Service as
Feller 1997) described both sites as highly threatened and believed the
existence of S. kenki is equally as tenuous to S. hayi, a listed
species that occurs within the park boundary. The petitioners also
state that according to the NPS (no citation provided):
Long-term threats exist within and outside the borders of Rock
Creek Park. The East Spring site could be threatened by additional
development of the recreation area located up slope. The Sherrill
Drive Spring site could be threatened by any changes in open space
at Walter Reed Hospital or surrounding homes. An example is the plan
Walter Reed Hospital has for building an additional Research
facility on its grounds.
The petitioners assert that rebuilding the stormwater
infrastructure of the city by the District of Columbia threatens the
species (Twomey 2001).
The petitioners state that unusually high flood levels from Rock
Creek reach the level of the spring habitat of Kenk's amphipod, and
this spring habitat has been flooded with increasing frequency in
recent years. They indicate that flood waters may adversely affect
spring habitat by washing away leaf litter and fine sediments, which
form the microhabitat utilized by S. kenki.
Virginia Well Amphipod
The petitioners state that S. phreaticus is known from only one
current location and that until its rediscovery at Fort Belvoir, there
was concern that it was extinct (no citation provided). The petitioners
cite Terwilliger (1991, p. 185) to support their claim that it is
unlikely that the species exists elsewhere. This claim is further
supported in the petition by Holsinger (1978) who hypothesizes that the
very distinctive morphological structure of the Virginia well amphipod
makes it unlikely to be overlooked in other collections.
The petitioners state that there are an increasing number of
activities at Fort Belvoir that could affect S. phreaticus. In the
Fort, in addition to constant activity such as military exercises and
training, there is the prospect of greatly increased building
activities, including creation of the Army Museum with its attendant
construction activities and increased visitation. The petitioners also
state that planning is underway for additional bridges crossing the
Potomac River near Washington and conclude that the cumulative result
of these ongoing and increasing activities for S. phreaticus will be
imminent extinction in the absence of the Act's protection.
Acanthocyclops columbiensis
The petitioners state that A. columbiensis, unless protected, could
likewise be extirpated at any moment. They indicate that it is known
from only two locations, Fort Stanton and Oxon Hill Parks. They further
assert that A. columbiensis' occurrence in a National Park affords it
little specific protection. Rob Gordon (author of the petition
supplement) has not seen the Fort Stanton site but indicates that at
Oxon Hill, where it is found in a small, brick-lined spring, A.
columbiensis is vulnerable to extirpation. Gordon cites impacts from
humans (such as, litter and discarded harmful substances) and a current
major Federal construction project (Wilson Bridge), which includes a
12-lane, two-span drawbridge and expansive network of approaches, as
threats to this species. He asserts that the highway project alone
could massively alter the hydrologic regime, altering ground water
recharge and introducing pollution from the project area.
Evaluation of Information in the Petition
The citations provided in the petition do not support the
petitioner's claims for any of the three species. Furthermore, the
assertion that the three invertebrates could be driven to extinction by
a single construction project is not plausible for Kenk's amphipod,
which occurs at six different sites (Feller 2005, p. 11), or for A.
columbiensis, which is known from two different sites and may occur in
many more areas (Reid 2001). It is more plausible for Virginia well
amphipod, which, at present, is only known from a single site on Fort
Belvoir. However, the petition provides no information about, nor are
we aware of, any projects planned within the recharge area for this
species as delineated by the hydrogeologic study funded by Fort Belvoir
(MACTEC 2003, p. 19).
Kenk's amphipod is known from six sites, not two as the petitioner
asserts. Four of the sites are within Rock Creek Park in the District
of Columbia, and two are in Montgomery County, MD: one in a county park
and one on private property (Feller 2005, p. 11). The macroinvertebrate
study (Feller 1997, pp. 8, 24-25, 37) that was referenced in the
petition supplement does support the petitioners' claim that the East
Spring and Sherill Drive Spring sites are highly threatened; however,
the petition does not refer to any of the other four sites supporting
the species. Although the information attributed to NPS regarding the
threats to East Spring and Sherrill Drive Spring appears plausible, no
specific source is cited by the petitioners, and this information
relates to only two of the six known sites. The planned stormwater
infrastructure project in the District of Columbia mentioned by the
petitioners is unlikely to have an effect on this species, as it only
affects a section of the Rock Creek drainage well downstream of all
Kenk's amphipod sites (Yeaman 2001). The petitioners provide no
citation to support their statement that there is an increasing level
and frequency of flooding in Rock Creek and that this increased
flooding is affecting Kenk's amphipod.
As stated by the petitioners, Virginia well amphipod is currently
known to be extant at only a single location (Chazal and Hobson 2003,
p. iii). The petition correctly states that there is an increasing
number of activities occurring on Fort Belvoir, but presents no
evidence that the referenced activities will affect the recharge area,
as delineated by MACTEC (2003, p. 19), for the seep supporting this
species. The one activity described in detail in the petition, the
construction of the Army Museum, will occur near Route 1, approximately
2 miles (3.2 kilometers) from the seep and its recharge area (Keough
2001), making this activity unlikely to affect this species. Although
the petitioners state that planning is underway for additional Potomac
River bridges near Washington, DC, they provide no supporting
information for this claim, and the Service is not aware of any
planning currently underway (Zepp 2006).
As stated in the petition supplement, Acanthocyclops columbiensis
is currently known to be extant at only two locations, Fort Stanton
Park and Oxon Hill Farm Park, both in Prince Georges County, MD. The
petitioners provided information concerning threats at the Oxon Hill
site only; no information is provided for the Fort Stanton Park site.
Their evidence concerning the threat of pollution of the Oxon Hill
spring from public littering is speculative and not supported by any
independent sources. The potential for impacts to this copepod from
upgrades to the Washington (DC) Beltway and the construction of a new
access road to Oxon Hill Farm Park (which are part of the Wilson Bridge
Project) appears plausible, given the potential impact area for the
project shown in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Wilson
Bridge (Federal Highway Administration 2000, Figure 3-13). However,
construction of these features is now complete, and we are aware of
[[Page 51769]]
no evidence that spring flows have been affected.
Based on the information in the petition and information readily
available to us, we conclude that present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitats or ranges has not affected the
status of the three invertebrates to the extent that listing under the
Act as a threatened or endangered species may be warranted.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petitioners assert that even moderate collection of the three
species for scientific or educational purposes would pose a threat to
these species due to their rarity and limited occurrence in small locales.
Evaluation of Information in the Petition
The petitioners provide no documentation that collecting for
scientific or educational purposes is a threat, nor are we aware of any
such information. Collections involved very low numbers of the three
invertebrates, and effects on their populations are unlikely.
Therefore, we find that the petition does not contain substantial
scientific or commercial information concerning collecting for
scientific or educational purposes to indicate that listing of the
three invertebrates may be warranted.
C. Disease and Predation
The petitioners speculate that it is reasonable to assume that the
three invertebrates could possibly be prey for large aquatic insects
and their predacious larvae.
Evaluation of Information in the Petition
The petitioners provide no documentation that such predators are
present in the spring-seep habitats of the three invertebrates or that
their predation constitutes a threat. Therefore, we find that the
petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information concerning that disease or predation to indicate that
listing of the three invertebrates may be warranted.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioners indicate that Kenk's amphipod receives some
protection from NPS, which administers Rock Creek Park, but that such
protection was not considered adequate for the federally listed Hay's
Spring amphipod (Stygobromus hayi), which also occurs there. In support
of the latter statement, the petitioners cite the rule listing the
Hay's Spring amphipod (47 FR 5425, February 5, 1982).
The petitioners also assert that manmade or small natural events could
destroy the only known habitat for Virginia well amphipod at Fort Belvoir
and the Fort Stanton and Oxon Hill Farm habitats for A. columbiensis.
Evaluation of Information in the Petition
We also note that Hay's Spring amphipod was not known to occur on
NPS lands (its only occurrence was on the adjacent National Zoological
Park), so the protections (or lack thereof) that now apply to Rock
Creek Park were not a consideration in the listing decision (47 FR
5425, February 5, 1982).
Therefore, we find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information concerning the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms to indicate that listing of the three
invertebrates may be warranted.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
The petitioners indicate that ``any activities affecting the Upper
Potomac and its tributaries, especially the ground water level and its
characteristics could be detrimental to the survival of these three
invertebrates.'' The petitioners also assert that manmade or small
natural events could destroy the only known habitat for the Virginia
well amphipod at Fort Belvoir and Fort Stanton and Oxon Hill Farm
habitats for A. columbiensis
Evaluation of Information in the Petition
Activities in the Upper Potomac and its tributaries have previously
been covered under Factor A. Except for the proposed Army Museum,
discussed under Factor A, the petitioners have provided no
documentation of specific threats at Fort Belvoir. Specific manmade or
natural events potentially affecting A. columbiensis were discussed
under Factors A and D.
No additional information or documentation is provided on this
point by the petitioners. Therefore, we find that the petition does not
present substantial scientific or commercial information concerning
other natural or manmade factors, to indicate that listing of the three
invertebrates may be warranted.
Significant Portion of the Range
Under section 4(b)(1) of the Act, we are required to make a finding
as to whether the petition presents substantial information ``that the
petitioned action may be warranted'' (emphasis added). The petition
asserts that the three invertebrates (Kenk's amphipod, Virginia well
amphipod, and Acanthocyclops columbiensis) require listing throughout
their current, respective ranges; the petitioned action was to list
each of the invertebrates throughout all of its range. As discussed
above, we have determined that the petition did not present substantial
information that the petitioned action may be warranted. Although we
have no obligation under section 4(b)(1) to address the separate
question of whether any of the three invertebrates is threatened or
endangered in a significant portion of its range, we note that nothing
in the petition or our files lead us to the conclusion that we should
at this time, undertake a candidate assessment of any of the three
invertebrates to determine whether it is threatened or endangered in a
significant portion of its range. If the Service obtains sufficient
information in the future that suggests that any of the three
invertebrates may warrant listing due to threats in all or a
significant portion of its range, we will initiate a candidate
assessment, subject to availability of resources, and if appropriate,
add the species to the candidate list or propose its listing where
threatened or endangered.
Finding
We reviewed the petition, the petition supplement, and supporting
information provided with these documents and evaluated that
information in relation to other pertinent literature and information
available in our files at the time of petition review. After this
review and evaluation, we find the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information to demonstrate that
listing of Kenk's amphipod, Virginia well amphipod, or the copepod
Acanthocyclops columbiensis may be warranted at this time, nor do we
have other information available to us that indicates that a listing
proposal may be warranted. We encourage interested parties to continue
to gather data that will assist with the conservation of these species.
Information regarding the three invertebrates may be submitted to the
Field Supervisor, Chesapeake Bay Field Office (see ADDRESSES), at any time.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Chesapeake Bay Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
[[Page 51770]]
Author
The primary author of this document is the Chesapeake Bay Field
Office, Annapolis, MD.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 31, 2007.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7-17716 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P