PETITION TO LIST 404 AQUATIC, RIPARIAN AND WETLAND SPECIES FROM THE
SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES AS THREATENED OR ENDANGERED UNDER THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Center for Biological Diversity
April 20, 2010

 April 20, 2010
TO: Mr. Ken Salazar
Secretary of the Interior
18th and "C" Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Mr. Gary Locke
Secretary of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20230
Cynthia Dohner, Regional Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlise Service, Southeast Region
1875 Century Blvd., Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30345
Dear Secretary Salazar and Secretary Locke:
Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §1533(b), Section 553(3) of
the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), and 50 C.F.R. §424.14(a), the Center for
Biological Diversity, Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration
Network, Tennessee Forests Council, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Tierra Curry and Noah
Greenwald hereby formally petition the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to list 404 aquatic,
riparian and wetland species from the southeastern U.S. as Threatened or Endangered species and to
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing.
Petitioners file this petition under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. sections 15311543 (1982). This petition is filed under 5 U.S.C. section 553(e), and 50 C.F.R. part
424.14 (1990), which grants interested parties the right to petition for issuance of a rule
from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior. The petitioners request that Critical Habitat
be designated as required by 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C) and 50 CFR 424.12, and pursuant
to the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Petitioners realize this petition sets
in motion a specific process placing definite response requirements on the FWS and very
specific time constraints upon those responses.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has long recognized the benefit of providing
protection for multiple species for improving efficiency of listing and recovery and
ultimately protection of ecosystems. In 1976, for instance, the FWS issued several
proposed rules to list multiple species based on common threats, ecosystems, habitats,
taxonomy, or other factors (e.g., USDI FWS 1976). In 1992, the FWS itself stated in a
legal Settlement Agreement (1992) that:
Defendants [FWS] recognize that a multi-species, ecosystem approach to their listing
responsibilities under the ESA will assist them in better analyzing the common nature and
magnitude of threats facing ecosystems, help them in understanding the relationships among
imperiled species in ecosystems, and be more cost-effective than a species-by-species approach to
listing responsibilities.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 2

 In 1994, the FWS (1994) specifically stated its policy to undertake “Group listing decisions on a
geographic, taxonomic, or ecosystem basis where possible” (p. 34724). In
furtherance of this policy, the FWS (1994) developed listing guidance that specifically
encourages “Multi-species listings…when several species have common threats, habitat,
distribution, landowners, or features that would group the species and provide more
efficient listing and subsequent recovery” (p. iv). Accordingly, we hereby petition for 404
aquatic, riparian and wetland species under the Endangered Species Act.
PETITIONERS:
The Center for Biological Diversity is a nonprofit conservation organization with
255,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered
species and wild places. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org
The Alabama Rivers Alliance seeks to protect Alabama's rivers through water quality and quantity
policy advocacy, grassroots organizing, and the providing of information to citizens in order to achieve
clean and healthy watershed ecosystems, healthy people, strong economies, and a functioning
democratic system of government in Alabama.
The Clinch Coalition is a grassroots organization located in Southwest Virginia committed to the
protection and preservation of the forest, wildlife, and watersheds in our National Forest and
surrounding communities for present and future generations.
Dogwood Alliance works to protect the forests and communities of the Southern United States by
building diverse support to end destructive industrial forestry practices.
The Gulf Restoration Network, headquartered in New Orleans, works to unite and empower people to
protect and restore the natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico for future generations. Founded in 1994,
the Network has successfully established a unique regional alliance with over 40 group and thousands of
individual members across the Gulf and established itself as a major participant in the debate over the
environment of the region.

Tennessee Forests Council is a unification of citizens, environmental, conservation and grassroots
organizations representing over 12,000 Tennesseans. These organizations have come together for the common
purpose of protecting the forests of Tennessee through progressive forest policy reform that brings forest
extraction methods and rates into balance with ecological integrity. TFC bases its positions on sound forest
science and economic principles.
The West Virginia Highlands Conservancy was the first membership organization devoted to protecting the
natural environment of the Mountain State. Since 1965, the Highlands Conservancy has worked to secure
wilderness areas and special places on the Monongahela National Forest, and it has been has been a leader in the
fight to rein in the worst practices of the coal industry. Protecting clean air, clean water, forests, streams,
mountains, and the health and welfare of the people who live here is what the Highlands Conservancy is all about.
It publishes a Hiking Guide and a monthly newspaper, The Highlands Voice.

Cover Photo: Holiday darter (Etheostoma brevirostrum) from Shoal Creek by Noel Burkhead.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 3

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION

5

METHODS

6

THREATS
PRESENT OR THREATENED DESTRUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR
CURTAILMENT OF HABITAT OR RANGE

6
6

OVERUTILIZATION

21

DISEASE AND PREDATION

23

INADEQUACY OF EXISTING REGULATORY MECHANISMS

25

OTHER NATURAL OR HUMAN CAUSED FACTORS

33

REQUEST FOR CRITICAL HABITAT

44

LITERATURE CITED

45

SPECIES ACCOUNTS

67-1145

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 4

 INTRODUCTION
North American freshwater ecosystems and the many species they support are one of the most
threatened ecosystems on the planet. During the Twentieth Century, at least 123 species of freshwater
fishes, mollusks, crayfishes, and amphibians went extinct in North America, and hundreds more aquatic
species are now imperiled (Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1999, Williams et al. 1992). Based on current
trends, Ricciardi and Rasmussen (1999) model a future extinction rate of four percent per decade for
North American freshwater fauna, stating, “North American freshwater biodiversity is diminishing as
rapidly as that of some of the most stressed terrestrial ecosystems on the planet” (Ricciardi and
Rasmussen 1999, p. 1221). The projected extinction rate for U.S. freshwater animals is five times that of
terrestrial animals, and is comparable to the extinction rate for tropical rainforests (Herrig and Shute
2002). Nowhere is this extinction crisis more apparent than in the southeastern United States where the
combination of an incredibly rich fauna, pervasive threats and few existing protections are leading to the
demise of hundreds of aquatic species.
In North America and indeed the world, the southeastern United States is a hotspot for aquatic biological
diversity, containing an unparalleled diversity of fauna (Folkerts 1997, Neves et al. 1997, Stein et al.
2000). The southeast, for example, harbors 493 species of fish, which is 62 percent of all U.S. species,
at least 269 species of mussel, which is 91 percent of all U.S. species, and 241 species of dragonflies and
damselflies, which is 48 percent of all North American species (Folkerts 1997, Morse et al. 1997, Neves
et al. 1997, Warren et al. 1997). The southeast also harbors over two-thirds of North America’s 405
species and subspecies of crayfish, more aquatic reptiles than any other region with 30 species of aquatic
turtle and 17 species of aquatic snake, and more amphibian species than any other region with 178
recognized species and new species continuing to be described (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997, Dodd
1997, Taylor et al. 2007, Camp et al. 2009).
Unfortunately, much of the rich aquatic fauna of the southeast is threatened. Greater than 70 percent of
mussels, 48 percent of crayfishes and 28 percent of fishes are considered endangered, threatened or of
special concern by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1992, Taylor et al. 2007, Jelks et al.
2008). The major factors in this high degree of imperilment include dams, logging, urban sprawl,
mining, poor agricultural practices, pollution, and invasive species (e.g. Folkerts 1997, Neves et al.
1997, Williams et al. 2008). The Coosa River in Georgia and Alabama, for example, is believed by
scientists to “hold the dubious distinction of having more recent extirpations and extinctions of aquatic
organisms than any other equally-sized river system in the United States,” with the loss of 38 species of
endemic aquatic snails and a number of fish species mostly caused by a series of large impoundments,
pollution, and logging (Burkhead et al. 1997).
Despite the high rate of imperilment and imminent and growing threats to aquatic ecosystems in the
southeast, the majority of southeastern aquatic species recognized to be imperiled are not afforded
protection under the Endangered Species Act or other laws or regulations. To remedy this situation,
provide greater protection to southeastern aquatic ecosystems and stave off a looming extinction crisis,
the Center for Biological Diversity hereby petitions the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list 404
southeastern aquatic, riparian and wetland species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has long recognized the benefit of protecting multiple species
in a package for improving efficiency of listing and recovery and ultimately, protection of ecosystems.
In 1994, the Service specifically stated its policy to undertake “Group listing decisions on a geographic,
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 5

 taxonomic, or ecosystem basis where possible” and developed listing guidance that specifically
encourages “Multi-species listings…when several species have common threats, habitat, distribution,
landowners, or features that would group the species and provide more efficient listing and subsequent
recovery.” This petition is consistent with this policy and we encourage the Service to group and
process these species in any way that will further efficiency and timely protection.
METHODS
We identified species for petitioning based on an iterative process utilizing information from available
databases and literature cataloging information on species’ habitat preferences, status and threats,
including NatureServe, IUCN and various American Fisheries Society (AFS) publications (Williams et
al. 1992, Williams et al. 1993, Taylor et al. 2007, Jelks et al. 2008, NatureServe 2008). We formed an
initial list by searching NatureServe for species that occur in the twelve states typically considered the
southeast, occur in aquatic, riparian or wetland habitats and appeared to be imperiled.
We considered species imperiled if they were classified as G1 or G2 by NatureServe, near threatened or
worse by IUCN, or a species of concern, threatened or endangered by AFS. Once we had an initial list,
we searched for information on threats to species and only included those species where there was some
information demonstrating threats to the species. We avoided species that have yet to be fully described.
Once we developed an initial list of species for inclusion in the petition, we consulted with numerous
scientific experts specializing in various taxonomic groups, including fish, mollusks, insects, crayfish
and plants, to obtain their feedback and whether listing of the species may be warranted. We removed
many species based on expert advice.
Once species were identified for the petition, we created a database structured for entering the basic
information necessary to show that listing of the species may be warranted, including fields on
taxonomy, habitat, range, status, abundance, population trend and the five factors under the Endangered
Species Act for determining whether a species is threatened or endangered. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1). We
then searched available literature on the species and created the individual species accounts contained in
this petition.
THREATS
The globally significant aquatic biota of the southeastern United States is threatened by a variety of
factors. Habitat loss and degradation is the primary cause of extinction globally and for the petitioned
species. Southeastern aquatic biota are also threatened by numerous other factors including pollution,
global climate change, the spread of invasive species, overutilization, disease, predation, and the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect imperiled species and their habitats (Benz and
Collins 1997, Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1999, Strayer 2006).
I. Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range
The southeast has been identified as one of the regions in the United States where ecosystem losses have
been most pronounced (Noss et al. 1995). Aquatic and riparian habitats in the southeast have been
extensively degraded by direct alteration of waterways such as impoundment, diversion, dredging and
channelization, and draining of wetlands, and by land-use activities such as development, agriculture,
logging, and mining (Benz and Collins 1997, Shute et al. 1997). The degradation of aquatic habitats is a
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 6

 primary cause for the loss of biodiversity in streams and rivers (Allan and Flecker 1993). More than onethird of the petitioned species have experienced drastic range reductions, upwards of 90 percent range
loss for many of the petitioned mussels and snails (Pyne and Durham 1993, Neves et al. 1997,
NatureServe 2008). Because many of the aquatic species in the Southeast are very narrow endemics or
have experienced dramatic range reductions, remaining populations are now susceptible to extinction
from even relatively minor habitat losses (Herrig and Shute 2002).
Habitat loss and degradation is known to be causing the decline of southeastern biota, and threatens 98
percent of the petitioned species. Habitat degradation has been a contributing factor in nearly threequarters of freshwater fish extinctions in North America (Miller et al. 1989). In the southeast,
decreasing habitat area and increasing fragmentation are strongly correlated with regional loss of fish
diversity, and Warren et al. (1997) cite “the engine of imperilment” for Southeastern freshwater fishes as
the “pervasive, complex degradation of fish habitats across Southeastern drainages.” Habitat loss is also
driving the decline of reptiles, mollusks, and other aquatic taxa. Buhlmann and Gibbons (1997) found
that 36 percent of analyzed imperiled aquatic reptiles are threatened because of the “continuing,
cumulative abuse sustained by river systems,” and that at least 22 Southeastern reptile taxa have
declined due to degradation of rivers and streams (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997). Habitat degradation is
also the primary cause of imperilment for southeastern mollusks (Neves et al. 1997, Lysne et al. 2008),
mammals (Harvey and Clark 1997), and plants (Stein et al. 2000).
Physical Alteration of Aquatic Habitats
In the southeast, nearly all of the major river and stream systems have been impounded, drained,
channelized, or altered in some way (Schuster 1997). Concerning the challenges facing freshwater
species conservation, Strayer (2006) declares, “It is difficult to overstate the extent to which humans
have changed freshwater habitats” (p. 278). Forty-four percent of U.S. river miles are classified as
impaired, primarily due to hydrologic modifications and agricultural runoff (EPA 2004).
Impoundment
Impoundment is a primary threat to aquatic species in the southeast (Benz and Collins 1997, Buckner et
al. 2002, Herrig and Shute 2002). Nearly half of all the petitioned species are threatened by
impoundment, including 83 percent of the fishes and 67 percent of the mollusks. Dams modify habitat
conditions and aquatic communities both upstream and downstream of the impoundment (Winston et al.
1991, Mulholland and Lenat 1992, Soballe et al. 1992). Upstream of dams, habitat is flooded and inchannel conditions change from flowing to still water, with increased depth, decreased levels of
dissolved oxygen, and increased sedimentation. Sedimentation alters substrate conditions by filling in
interstitial spaces between rocks which provide habitat for many species (Neves et al. 1997).
Downstream of dams, flow regime fluctuates with resulting fluctuations in water temperature and
dissolved oxygen levels, the substrate is scoured, and downstream tributaries are eroded (Schuster 1997,
Buckner et al. 2002). Negative “tailwater” effects on habitat extend many kilometers downstream
(Neves et al. 1997). Dams fragment habitat for aquatic species by blocking corridors for migration and
dispersal, resulting in population isolation and heightened susceptibility to extinction (Neves et al.
1997). Dams also preclude the ability of aquatic organisms to escape from polluted waters and
accidental spills (Buckner et al. 2002).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 7

 Fig. 1 Impaired Waters of the Southeast. Aquatic species are threatened by extensive impoundment and pollution.

There are few major rivers in the southeastern United States which haven’t been impounded (Shute et al.
1997). Medium-sized rivers in particular have been heavily impounded (Etnier 1997). Impoundments
have been constructed throughout the region by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley
Authority, electrical power companies, and municipalities (Morse et al. 1997, Buckner et al. 2002). As
of the early 1990’s, there were 144 major reservoirs in the southeast, including 26 in Tennessee, 19 each
in Alabama and North Carolina, and 17 in Kentucky (Soballe et al. 1992). There are 36 dams on the
mainstem and major tributaries of the Tennessee River (Neves et al. 1997), resulting in the
impoundment of more than 20 percent of the Tennessee River and its major tributaries (Shute et al.
1997). The Tennessee and Cumberland River drainages have approximately 70 major dams and
reservoirs (Buckner et al. 2002). Waterways in Alabama have also been extensively impounded, with 16
major lock and dam structures on six rivers, 21 hydroelectric power dams, and over 20 public water
supply impoundments (Buckner et al. 2002). The Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers in Georgia and Alabama
have been ranked among the most imperiled rivers in the nation due to damming (Buckner et al. 2002).
Although damming projects have been curtailed in many areas of the county, construction of
impoundments is ongoing in the southeast (Folkerts 1997, Buckner et al. 2002). Folkerts (1997) states:

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 8

 “Proof of the Third World status of the Southeast lies in the fact that the damming era is not yet
over in the area, as it essentially is in the rest of the nation. Plans to dam many of the remaining
free-flowing rivers or reaches are in various stages of development even though not highly
publicized” (p. 11).
In addition to rivers, damming of streams and springs is also extensive throughout the southeast (Etnier
1997, Morse et al. 1997, Shute et al. 1997). Shute et al. (1997) report that “few Southeastern streams are
spared from impoundment” (p. 458). Noss et al. (1995) report that practically every stream in the
Mississippi Alluvial Plain has been channelized, levied, or hydrologically altered. Morse et al. (1997)
report that many streams have both small ponds in their headwaters and large reservoirs in their lower
reaches. Small streams on private lands are regularly dammed to create ponds for cattle, irrigation,
recreation, and fishing, with significant ecological effects due to the sheer abundance of these structures
(Morse et al. 1997). Buckner et al. (2002) report that small headwater streams are increasingly being
dammed in the southeast to supply water for municipalities. Etnier (1997) reports that many
southeastern springs have also been impounded.
Dams are known to have caused the extirpation and extinction of many southeastern species, and
existing and proposed dams pose an ongoing threat to many of the petitioned species (Folkerts 1997,
Neves et al. 1997, FWS 2000, Buckner et al. 2002, Herrig and Shute 2002). Dams are a primary cause of
imperilment for freshwater fish. Etnier (1997) found that impoundment and alteration of flow regime is
responsible for 32 percent of fish imperilment in the southeast. The construction of ten lock and dam
structures on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, which artificially connects the Tennessee River to
the Gulf of Mexico, led to the extirpation of many species from the main river channel, including the
Frecklebelly Madtom (Noturus munitus) (Bennet et al. 2008). The Frecklebelly Madtom was also
extirpated from the Alabama River due to impoundments, and because this species is dependent on
large-river gravel shoal habitat, it is “vulnerable to river modifications that will likely continue into the
foreseeable future” (Bennett et al. 2008). In Florida and other Atlantic states, impoundment of large
coastal tributaries has severely curtailed fish spawning runs (Gilbert 1992). Impoundment blocks
migratory routes for fish and covers spawning areas with silt (Etnier 1997). Dams and resultant substrate
changes have led to the disproportionately high imperilment of benthic fishes (Warren et al. 1997).
Even small dams negatively affect aquatic fauna. In Oklahoma, populations of four species of cyprinids
were extirpated when a small dam was constructed on the North Fork of the Red River (Winston et al.
1991).
Impoundments are one of the primary causes for the reduction in diversity and abundance of freshwater
mussels in the southeast (Williams et al. 1993, Neves et al. 1997). Impoundments threaten freshwater
mollusks via both direct and indirect mechanisms. Changes in the fish community jeopardize the
survival of mussels because mussels are dependent on host fish to successfully reproduce, with some
species of mussels being dependent on specific species of fish (Bogan 1993, 1996). If the fish species
upon which a mussel is dependent to host its larvae goes extinct, then the mussel becomes “functionally
extinct,” even when there are surviving long-lived individuals (Bogan 1993). Impoundments can also
separate mussel populations from host fish populations, resulting in the eventual extinction of the mussel
species (Bogan 1993, 1996). Layzer et al. (1993) and Williams et al. (1992) report instances of 30 to 60
percent of the mussel fauna being lost as the result of dam construction. The loss of mussels can in turn
negatively affect fish, because some species of fish use empty mussel shells as nest sites (Bennett et al.
2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 9

 Impoundment and the resultant loss of shoal habitat has caused range reduction or extinction for many
species of Southeastern freshwater snails (Neves et al. 1997). Many snail species now exist primarily as
“relict populations” which only survive immediately below dam sites (Neves et al. 1997). Impoundment
is also one of the primary causes for the imperilment of crustaceans in the southeast (Schuster 1997).
Dams have also destroyed habitat for many species of aquatic insects, with remaining populations being
genetically isolated due to limited dispersal abilities (Herrig and Shute 2002). Impoundment has also
contributed to the decline of forest-associated bird species in the southeast, particularly for species with
narrow niches and low tolerance to disturbance (Dickson 1997).
Dredging and Channelization
Dredging and channelization have led to “incalculable loss of aquatic habitat in the Southeast” (Warren
Jr. et al. 1997). Dredging and channelization projects are extensive throughout the region for flood
control, navigation, sand and gravel mining, and conversion of wetlands into croplands (Neves et al.
1997, Herrig and Shute 2002). Many rivers are continually dredged to maintain a channel for shipping
traffic (Abell et al. 2002). Dredging and channelization modify and destroy habitat for aquatic species
by destabilizing the substrate, increasing erosion and siltation, removing woody debris, decreasing
habitat heterogeneity, and stirring up contaminants which settle onto the substrate (Hart and Fuller 1974,
Williams et al. 1993, Buckner et al. 2002, Bennett et al. 2008). Channelization can also lead to
headcutting, which causes further erosion and sedimentation (Hartfield 1993b). Channel modification is
one of the primary contributors to the decline of freshwater mollusks because of substrate instability,
headcutting, sedimentation, and actual removal of mussels from their beds during dredging operations
(Hart and Fuller 1974, Williams et al. 1993). Neves et al. (1997) describe dredging as “a perpetual
problem for sedentary mollusks that are displaced and killed in dredge spoils,” stating, “Endangered
mussels of big rivers . . . have been under siege for decades by navigational dredging mostly by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Even the presence of federally endangered species does not prevent the
modification of habitats where these animals reside” (p. 71).
Dredging and channelization also threaten imperiled fishes, reptiles, crustaceans, and other species.
Dredging removes woody debris which provides cover and nest locations for fish such as the
Frecklebelly Madtom (Bennet et al. 2008). Flood control projects and channel maintenance operations in
Mississippi threaten aquatic species in the Yazoo Basin (Jackson et al. 1993), including the petitioned
Yazoo crayfish. Channelization is known to be a primary cause of imperilment for southeastern
crustaceans (Schuster 1997). Dredging and channelization are also contributing to the decline of
southeastern turtles (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997). Many of the petitioned turtle species, including the
highly imperiled map turtles, are threatened by the removal of woody debris on which they depend for
basking.
Water Development and Diversion and Decreased Water Availability
The diminishing availability of freshwater poses a present and increasing threat to aquatic species
globally and in the southeastern United States (Benz and Collins 1997, Buckner et al. 2002, Herrig and
Shute 2002, Hutson et al. 2005, Lysne et al. 2008). Human population growth and increasing demand
for freshwater resources has placed and will continue to place many aquatic species at risk (Jackson et
al. 2001, Postel 2000, Gleick 2003, Strayer 2006). In the southeast, demands for freshwater for
electricity production, irrigation, agriculture, and industrial and residential development are increasing
(Herrig and Shute 2002, Hutson et al. 2005, Lysne et al. 2008). Limited water supply is already an area
of conflict in Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia in particular where rapidly growing metropolitan areas
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 10

 such as Atlanta, Birmingham, and Nashville have drastically increased the demand for freshwater for
residential and industrial uses (Buckner et al. 2002). In the agricultural sector, the construction of
numerous large Confined Animal Feeding Operations throughout the southeast has led to an increased
demand for inter-basin water transfers (Buckner et al. 2002). Increasing drought due to global climate
change is expected to exacerbate the threat of limited water availability to aquatic and riparian species in
southeastern states (Karl et al. 2009).
Demand for freshwater for use in electricity production is also increasing in the southeast. Freshwater is
used extensively in electrical power generation for emission scrubbing and cooling (DOE 2006). In the
year 2000, thermoelectric power generation accounted for 39 percent of all U.S. freshwater withdrawals
(Hutson et al. 2004). Existing and proposed coal-fired power plants in the southeast require and will
continue to require significant amounts of water to operate. For example, the proposed East Kentucky
Power Cooperative Smith coal-fired power plant will require 1,495 gallons of water per minute from the
Kentucky River to control nitrous oxide emissions (Gilpin Group 2007). Water demands have also
increased in the southeast to support the construction of gas-fired steam plants for electricity generation,
which require millions of gallons of water per day, and which return only roughly a fifth of water back
into waterways (Buckner et al. 2002). Water which is returned to the waterbody from which it is
pumped tends to be thermally polluted and may be inadequate to meet the dissolved oxygen needs of
aquatic species (Buckner et al. 2002).
Surface diversion of streams also threatens southeastern aquatic species (Etnier 1997, Abell et al. 2000,
Buckner et al. 2002, Herrig and Shute 2002). An increasing threat for Southeastern species is the
growing practice of damming small headwater streams to supply water for municipalities (Buckner et al.
2002). In addition to impoundment effects, water withdrawals reduce base flows and decrease habitat
availability for aquatic species (Abell et al. 2000, Herrig and Shute 2002). Reduced water volume also
increases the concentration of pollutants, posing another threat to species (Abell et al. 2000, Herrig and
Shute 2002).
In addition to rivers and streams, many Southeastern springs have been drastically altered to supply
water for human uses (Etnier 1997). Spring development and diversion can alter flow regime and water
quality parameters, lead to substrate disturbance and erosion, and alter the structure and composition of
vegetative cover with resultant effects on freshwater fauna (Shepard 1993, Frest and Johannes 1995,
Frest 2002). In terms of the effects of spring diversion on aquatic species, Frest (2002) states, “[Spring]
development can completely extirpate the native freshwater mollusks as well as reduce diversity in other
animal and plant groups.” An additional threat to southeastern species is groundwater overdraft, which
threatens spring flow and species which are dependent on consistent spring flow conditions (Strayer
2006). The dewatering of groundwater systems in the southeast threatens rare species of isopods,
amphipods, fish, crayfish, and amphibians which are dependent on stable spring and cave environments
(Herrig and Shute 2002).
Loss of Wetlands
In the continental United States, over half of wetlands have been lost or severely degraded, and many
southeastern states have lost the vast majority of their wetlands (Dahl 1990, Noss et al. 1995). More than
80 percent of the wetlands in Kentucky have been destroyed, as have more than 70 percent of Arkansas
wetlands, nearly 60 percent of Tennessee and Mississippi wetlands, and half of Florida and Alabama
wetlands (Dahl 1990). Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North and South Carolina
have each lost more than 100,000 acres of palustrine forested wetlands (Dahl and Johnson 1991).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 11

 Through the mid-1980’, wetlands were lost in the southeast at a rate of over 385,000 acres per year
(Hefner and Brown 1984). In Florida alone, over nine million acres of wetlands have been lost (Cerulean
1991). In Arkansas, six million acres of Mississippi Delta wetlands had been converted to agricultural
use by the mid-1980’s (Smith et al. 1984). In the Lower Mississippi Valley region, over one-third of
existing wetlands were destroyed from 1950-1970 (Mitsch and Gosselink 1986), with over 165,000
acres of wetlands continuing to be lost annually through the mid-1980’s in this region (Tiner 1984). In
Tennessee, up to 90 percent of upland wetlands on the Highland Rim have been destroyed, as have more
than 90 percent of Appalachian bogs in the Blue Ridge Province (Pyne and Durham 1993). The
destruction of pocosins (evergreen shrub bogs) has been extensive throughout the southeast, with greater
than 90 percent loss in Virginia, nearly 70 percent loss in North Carolina, and nearly 70 percent loss on
the Southeastern Coastal Plain (Noss et al. 1995).
Loss, degradation, and fragmentation of wetland habitat have negatively affected numerous southeastern
freshwater species, and natural wetland habitats continue to be lost, placing more species at risk (Dodd
1990, Benz and Collins 1997, Semlitsch and Bodie 1998, Herrig and Shute 2002). Vegetated permanent
wetlands are among the most jeopardized habitats in the southeast, causing fish families that are
dependent on these wetland habitats, such as pygmy sunfishes, to have a disproportionately high level of
imperilment (Etnier and Starnes 1991, Cubbage and Flather 1993, Dickson and Warren 1994, Warren et
al.1997). Wetland destruction has also destroyed habitat for many bird species (Dickson 1997). Aquatic
reptile species that depend on standing water habitats have been negatively affected by wetland loss and
alteration, loss of beaver ponds, and removal of habitat features such as basking logs (Herrig and Shute
2002). Buhlmann and Gibbons (1997) found that 55 percent of imperiled aquatic reptile species in the
southeast are declining due to loss of wetland habitats, including 34 taxa of aquatic snakes and turtles.
For example, Dodd (1990) found that wetland fragmentation contributed to the decline of the flattened
musk turtle. Wetland loss also threatens southeastern amphibians (LaClaire 1997). Habitat for the
petitioned salamander, the Gulf Hammock Dwarf Siren, has been lost as wetlands have been drained for
residential, agricultural, and silvicultural development (AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Many reptile and amphibian populations exist as metapopulations that rely on habitat connectivity to
maintain genetic structure and provide recolonization opportunities in the event of localized extirpation
(Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997, Semlitsch and Bodie 1998).
Habitat fragmentation and wetland isolation thus threaten the regional persistence of southeastern
wetland herptile populations by cutting off opportunities for migration and dispersal and magnifying the
likelihood of inbreeding depression and reproductive failure due to random environmental perturbation
(Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997, Semlitsch and Bodie 1998). Small wetlands continue to be lost, and even
the loss of small wetlands can have negative effects on the persistence of metapopulations (Semlitsch
and Bodie 1998).
Land Use Activities that Decrease Watershed Integrity
Overview
Southeastern aquatic biota are threatened not only by direct physical alteration of waterways, but also by
activities in the watershed that directly or indirectly degrade aquatic habitats such as residential,
commercial, and industrial development, agriculture, logging, mining, alteration of natural fire regime,
and recreation. Land-use activities can alter water chemistry, flow, temperature, and nutrient and
sediment transport, and can interfere with normal watershed functioning (Folkerts 1997). Cavefishes, for
example, have a disproportionately high level of imperilment due to habitat degradation because their
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 12

 food base is derived from surface inputs which are degraded by a variety of activities (Warren et al.
1997). The Service has acknowledged that the habitat needs of species extend beyond the water channel
and include riparian and floodplain habitats which are integral to maintaining channel geomorphology,
providing nutrient input, and buffering sediments and pollution (FWS 2004). Thus, when identifying
habitat threats to aquatic species, entire watersheds must be considered and not just localized sites where
species occur (Shute et al. 1997, Strayer 2006).
Residential and Industrial Development and Human Population Growth
Southeastern aquatic and riparian species are threatened by habitat loss and degradation from increased
development and resource consumption to support rapidly growing human population in the region.
Development threatens two-thirds of the petitioned species. The only known location of the petitioned
Florida fairy shrimp was destroyed by development (Rogers 2002), and unless this species is discovered
in new areas, it may already be extinct. The primary threat to the petitioned dragonfly, the purple
skimmer, is lakeshore development. The Waccamaw fatmucket, a petitioned mussel, is threatened
primarily by increasing development in its watershed. The Carolina pygmy sunfish, Chauga Crayfish,
and many other petitioned species are also threatened primarily by development.
Human population nearly doubled in the southeast from 1970-2000 (Folkerts 1997). From 1990-2000,
the population of Georgia increased by 26 percent, North Carolina by 21 percent, Tennessee by 17
percent, and the population of Virginia increased by 14 percent (Buckner et al. 2002). Southeastern
states continued to experience significant human population growth from 2000-2007, with the
population of Georgia increasing by 17 percent, Florida by 14 percent, North Carolina by 13 percent,
South Carolina by 10 percent, Virginia by 9 percent, and the population of Tennessee increasing by 8
percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). Metropolitan areas in the southeast are among the fastest growing in
the nation (Dodd 1997). The human population of Raleigh, NC, expanded by 31 percent from 20002007, with other metropolitan areas also experiencing significant population growth: Atlanta 24 percent,
Charlotte 24 percent, Jacksonville 16 percent, Nashville 16 percent, Tampa 14 percent, Richmond 11
percent, Miami 8 percent, Louisville 6 percent, Memphis 6 percent, and Birmingham 5 percent (U.S.
Census Bureau 2009). Population in the southeast is expected to increase to 78.2 million people by the
year 2020, representing a nearly 30 percent population increase over a 25-year period (Tennessen 1997).
Population growth threatens biodiversity due to increased demand for land, water, and other resources.
Southeastern metropolitan areas are adding urbanized land at an even faster rate than population is
increasing, with developed land increasing by 47 percent from 1982-1997 (Buckner et al. 2002). The
area of urbanized land in Nashville, TN, more than doubled during this 15-year period, representing
nearly an acre of newly developed land per new resident (Buckner et al. 2002). Similarly, the area of
developed land in Alabama increased by 19 percent from 1982-1992 (Buckner et al. 2002). The strong
geographic focus of development around fresh waters concentrates human ecological impacts on
freshwater ecosystems more than on any other part of the landscape (Strayer 2006). Throughout the
southeast, increased development is creating water supply problems, stressing available water resources,
and polluting aquatic habitats (Seager et al. 2009). For example, population growth in Birmingham is
pushing development into the upper Cahaba River watershed where runoff, wastewater discharges, and
water withdrawals directly threaten aquatic species (Buckner et al. 2002). During the dry season, the
Cahaba River’s entire flow may now be diverted for domestic use (Buckner et al. 2002). Global climate
change is expected to lead to fluctuating water supplies in the southeast, and in conjunction with
increasing human demand for freshwater, to place many aquatic species at heightened risk of extinction
(Karl et al. 2009).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 13

 Fig. 2. Major Roads of the Southeast. Increasing development poses a major threat to Southeastern aquatic species.

Urbanization and residential, commercial, and industrial development threaten aquatic species in both
direct and indirect ways. Habitat is directly lost and fragmented through land conversion and through
water withdrawal and diversion (Benz and Collins 1997). Predation increases as populations of pets and
synanthropic species increase (Marzluff et al. 2001). Point-source pollution from industry and runoff
from parking lots, roofs, roads, and lawns degrade water quality and have lethal and sub-lethal effects on
aquatic species. Urban runoff is associated with declines in macroinvertebrate diversity and with
decreased mussel growth rates, and urban land use classes are associated with impairment of fish and
macroinvertebrate communities (Soucek et al. 2003, Carlisle et al. 2008, see also petition section “Other
Factors, Pollution”). Amphibians and reptiles are particularly threatened by development. Siltation and
leachate from road runoff can be lethal for larval amphibians and other aquatic organisms (Dodd 1997).
The construction of roads increases mortality and leads to population isolation and the disruption of the
metacommunity structure on which the long term population persistence of many herptile species
depends (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997). Noise and light from roads and developments can interfere
with behavior patterns and disrupt breeding and feeding activities, particularly for amphibians (Dodd
1997). Amphibian species richness is lower in urbanized areas, as many species cannot persist in
urbanized sites (Delis 1993, Herrig and Shute 2002).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 14

 Habitat loss and degradation due to development is generally permanent and poses an increasing threat
to southeastern aquatic species. Folkerts (1997) reports that in the southeast in particular, development
threatens aquatic species more than in other areas due to lax enforcement of environmental laws in the
region.
Recreation
Increasing human population is increasing the demand for recreational developments and activities. The
development of smaller towns for retirement communities and recreational areas is increasing in the
southeast and is threatening freshwater biodiversity. Housing developments, strip malls, and resorts are
being constructed in very rural areas, and small towns are now burgeoning in previously undeveloped
areas including the Knoxville-Chattanooga suburban corridor, on the Cumberland Plateau, in the Cahaba
River headwaters outside Birmingham, and in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta (Buckner et al. 2002). Many
rapidly developing small communities are constructing dams on headwater streams, often in areas that
were recently remote and inaccessible, with resultant impacts on aquatic species (Buckner et. al 2002).
The development of housing and recreational facilities on lakeshores and in riparian areas results in the
degradation of water quality and aquatic habitat (Tennessen 1997). For instance, Morse et al. (1997)
report the loss of rare stonefly species in a stream in North Carolina following the development of
summer homes.
Recreational developments and activities threaten aquatic species for many reasons. Recreational
developments foster air and water pollution, litter, and potentially high densities of recreationists
(Houston 1971, White and Bratton 1980). Recreation can cause trampling of organisms and vegetation
(Liddle 1975). The petitioned plant species Plagiochila aspleniformis, for example, is threatened by
recreational use of its state park habitat (NatureServe 2008). Local habitat changes caused by trampling
include simplification of vegetation and soil compaction which can result in overall loss of habitat
diversity (Speight 1973, Liddle 1975). An egregious example of the potential impacts of recreation on
aquatic species is off-road vehicle use. Off-road vehicle use can lead to severe degradation of aquatic
and riparian habitats, the effects of which are well documented and include trampling of organisms,
destruction of vegetation, erosion, and degraded water quality (Wuerthner 2007). Off-road vehicle use
threatens imperiled mussels due to habitat degradation from riding in streams and along stream banks
(Hanlon and Levine 2004). The riding of off-road vehicles near water can destroy the nests of egglaying reptiles and can trample adults and young (Herrig and Shute 2002). Southeastern aquatic species
are also threatened by other forms of motorized recreation, such as the use of motorized boats and jetskis, which cause oil and gas contamination and bank erosion (Buckner et al. 2002). Poaching is also a
threat to species in recreational areas. For instance, Garber and Burger (1995) document the extirpation
of a turtle population in a protected area due to occasional removal of adults by recreational users.
Decreased water quality, trampling, or other recreational impacts threaten 22 percent of the petitioned
species including the Bigcheek cave crayfish, Blue Spring hydrobe snail, and small-flower meadowbeauty.

Logging

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 15

 Southeastern aquatic and riparian species are threatened by the loss of forests and the negative effects on
water quality and aquatic habitats which result from logging activities and canopy removal. More than
95 percent of the original forest in the 48 conterminous states has been lost (Noss et al. 1995), including
99 percent of eastern deciduous forest (Allen and Jackson 1992). By the late 1920’s, the majority of
forested land in the southeast had already been logged (Neves et al. 1997). By the 1960’s, clearcutting
had became standard practice on southeastern forests and continues to the present (Morse et al. 1997). A
region-wide cut is currently underway across the southeast, and the region now supplies nearly 70
percent of the nation’s pulp and paper products (Buckner et al. 2002). The rate of deforestation in the
southeast now exceeds that of any tropical area of comparable size (Folkerts 1997). The Tennessee,
Cumberland, and Mobile basins have experienced a drastic increase in large clearcutting operations and
chip mills, with 1.2 million acres of forest being cut annually to supply 150 regional chip mills, twothirds of which have been built since the late 1980s (Buckner et al. 2002). In the area surrounding Great
Smoky Mountain National Park, the rate of logging doubled from 1980-1990 (Folkerts 1997). Of the 70
million acres of longleaf pine forest which once covered over 40 percent of the Southeastern Coastal
Plain, only one to two percent remains, and the remnant acreage is fragmented and “poorly-managed”
(Noss et al. 1995, Dodd 1997). Clearcutting on the Coastal Plain has affected “virtually every aquatic
habitat in the area” (Folkerts 1997, p. 11). Much forested land in the southeast is in private ownership,
where “best management practices” to control erosion and protect aquatic habitats are not necessarily
followed, which amplifies water quality degradation and threatens aquatic species (Morse et al. 1997).
Logging has multiple direct and indirect negative effects on aquatic biota, across taxa. Erosion from
poor forestry practices degrades water quality (Williams et al. 1993). Increased sedimentation from
logging can suffocate aquatic snails and their eggs, preclude their ability to feed, and extirpate
populations: “As most (freshwater snails) are obligate perilithon grazers and require stable substrate,
siltation, such as that resulting from clear-cutting, generally means loss of habitat and at least local
extirpation” (Frest and Johannes 1993). Increased sedimentation is also harmful for freshwater mussels
(Neves et al. 1997). Clearcutting and conversion of deciduous forest to pine plantations increases
sedimentation and reduces the input of large woody debris and leaf litter into streams which are
necessary to provide microhabitat and food for aquatic organisms (Morse et al. 1997, Herrig and Shute
2002). Clearcutting can lead to the disappearance of caddisflies and mayflies, with ramifications at
higher levels of the food web (Morse et al. 1997). Amphibian diversity and abundance is reduced by
clearcutting and the conversion of deciduous forests to pine plantations (Dodd 1997, Herrig and Shute
2002). Aquatic-breeding amphibians which depend on ephemeral ponds and/or which are dependent on
forested habitats to complete their life cycle are particularly threatened by logging activities (Dodd
1997). Herbicides used after timber harvests also negatively affect amphibians and other aquatic
organisms (Dodd 1997, Herrig and Shute 2002).
Fifty-one percent of the petitioned species are threatened by logging. Logging is the primary threat to
the newly discovered patch-nosed salamander, and to many of the petitioned crayfishes including the
Irons Fork Burrowing Crayfish, Kisatchie painted crayfish, and pristine crayfish. Logging also threatens
the petitioned dragonflies including Westfall’s clubtail and the Ozark emerald.
Agriculture and Aquaculture
Southeastern aquatic species are threatened by the loss and degradation of habitat due to poor
agricultural practices. Agriculture is the most widely reported source of pollution in southeastern rivers
(EPA 2004). Intensive agriculture began in the southeast in the 1930’s, and agriculture continues to
extensively impact southeastern aquatic ecosystems (Neves et al. 1997). Agriculture in the southeast has
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 16

 a tremendous impact on aquatic habitats both due to the extent of farmland and to farming practices
(Buckner et al. 2002, Herrig and Shute 2002). In the Tennessee, Cumberland, and Mobile River basins,
for example, farms cover nearly half the landscape. Throughout the southeast, fields are commonly
plowed to the edges of waterways, causing sedimentation and bank collapse and facilitating the runoff of
fertilizers and pesticides (Buckner et al. 2002). Both traditional farming practices and confined animal
feeding operations contribute to water quality degradation and the imperilment of indigenous biota in the
southeast through erosion, sedimentation, and chemical and nutrient pollution from point and non-point
sources (Patrick 1992, Morse et al. 1997, Neves et al. 1997, Herrig and Shute 2002).
Fifty percent of the petitioned species are threatened by conversion of their habitat to agricultural use or
by agricultural runoff including the striated darter, Logan's agarodes caddisfly, the Sevier snowfly, and
the Tennessee clubtail dragonfly. Agriculture is known to be a major stressor for aquatic animals
(Richter et al. 1997). In a biological assessment of Appalachian streams, Carlisle et al. (2008) found that
agricultural land uses were associated with impairment of fish and macroinvertebrate communities.
Agriculture is known to be contributing to the decline of sensitive fish species (Herrig and Shute 2002).
Freshwater mollusks are threatened by silt loading and destabilized stream bottoms from agricultural
runoff (Williams et al. 1993, Neves et al. 1997). Agricultural activities on the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal
Plains threaten imperiled amphibians which are dependent on ephemeral pond habitats that are being
lost to agricultural development (Herrig and Shute 2002).

Fig. 3. Agricultural Lands of the Southeast. Half of the petitioned species are threatened by agricultural impacts.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 17

 Many of the petitioned species are specifically threatened by pollution from Confined Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs), including the Carolina madtom fish, corpulent hornsnail, Neuse River waterdog
salamander, and Ouachita creekshell mussel. CAFOs and feedlots have caused extensive degradation of
southeastern aquatic ecosystems (Neves et al. 1997, Buckner et al. 2002, Mallin and Cahoon 2003). The
number of CAFOs in the southeast has increased drastically since 1990 as livestock production has
undergone extensive industrialization (Buckner et al. 2002, Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Alabama and
Arkansas are now the nation’s leading poultry producers, with Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky also
ranking among the top ten states for poultry production (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). Poultry CAFOs are
also abundant in North Carolina, Mississippi, and Virginia (Mallin and Cahoon 2003). There are
extensive swine CAFOs on the North Carolina Coastal Plain, and North Carolina is now the nation’s
second largest pork producer (Mallin and Cahoon 2003, U.S. Census Bureau 2009). CAFOs threaten
aquatic species both due to the vast amounts of freshwater necessary to support their operation and due
to pollution (Buckner et al. 2002). CAFOs hold tens of thousands of animals and produce a large amount
of waste which enters the environment either by being discharged directly into streams or constructed
ditches, stored in open lagoons, or applied to fields in wet or dry form (Buckner et al. 2002, Mallin and
Cahoon 2003, Orlando et al. 2004). CAFO wastes contain nutrients, pharmaceuticals, and hormones,
and cause eutrophication of waterways, toxic blooms of algae and dinoflagellates, and endocrine
disruption in downstream wildlife (Mallin and Cahoon 2003, Orlando et al. 2004, see also petition
section “Other Factors, Pollution”).
Both livestock holding lots and landscape grazing degrade aquatic habitats in the southeast (Buckner et
al. 2002, Herrig and Shute 2002). Several southeastern states, including Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama,
and Florida, produce large amounts of cattle and horses both via grazing and holding lots (Buckner et al.
2002, U.S. Census Bureau 2009). Livestock are generally allowed to wade directly into streams,
trampling habitat, and causing erosion and nutrient contamination (Buckner et al. 2002). A survey of
peer-reviewed studies on the effects of livestock grazing on stream and riparian ecosystems found that
grazing negatively affects water quality and quantity, channel morphology, hydrology, soils, instream
and streambank vegetation, and aquatic and riparian wildlife (Belsky et al. 1999). Frest (2002) identifies
livestock grazing as a primary factor in the extirpation of freshwater snail populations. Snails and their
habitats are harmed via direct trampling, soil compaction, erosion, water siltation and pollution, and
drying up of springs and seeps (Frest 2002). The Piedmont Pondsnail, Stagnicola neopalustris, which
was known only from a single pond in Virginia, may have been driven to extinction due to cattle grazing
(Herrig and Shute 2002, NatureServe 2009). Grazing threatens 14 percent of the petitioned species
including the Virginia stone stonefly, Barrens darter fish, Cherokee clubtail dragonfly, Choctaw bean
mussel, and many plants including the eared coneflower.
Aquaculture poses another threat for aquatic species in the southeast. The largest aquacultural enterprise
in the United States is catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) farming, with 95 percent of production occurring in
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi (Tucker and Hargreaves 2003). Crayfish farming in
Louisiana is the nation’s second largest aquacultural enterprise, with the state holding over 49,000
hectares of crayfish ponds (Holdich 1993). Aquacultural operations can consist of constructed ponds or
tanks, dammed waterways, enclosures in natural water bodies, or land-based tanks with flow-through of
natural waters (Tacon and Forster 2003). Aquaculture threatens aquatic habitats due to habitat
conversion, the withdrawal, diversion, or impoundment of natural waterways to support operations, and
the release of effluent into waterbodies (Naylor et al. 2001). Trout farming, for example, requires large
amounts of cold water and operations are generally constructed on “outstanding resource waterways”
(Morse et al. 1997). Water-quality degradation from fish farms threatens southeastern aquatic insect
populations (Herrig and Shute 2002). As discussed previously, impoundments and diversions alter water
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 18

 chemistry and flow and can be detrimental for native mollusks and fishes (Morse et al. 1997, Neves et
al. 1997). The construction of shrimp farms in wetlands and estuaries also destroys and degrades habitat
for native aquatic species (Hopkins et al. 1995).
Mining and Oil and Gas Development
Mining for coal, gravel, limestone, phosphate, iron, and other raw materials poses a dire threat to many
aquatic species in the southeast (Dodd 1997, Buckner 2002). Past and present mining activities have
caused extensive degradation of aquatic and terrestrial habitats and extirpation of aquatic populations
(Neves et al. 1997). Twenty-nine percent of the petitioned species are threatened by mining and oil and
gas development.
Extensive strip mining for coal is conducted in West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, and
Alabama (Dodd 1997). As of 2004, more than 1.1 million acres of land in Appalachia were undergoing
active mining operations (Loveland et al. 2003). The EPA projects that from 1992-2013, 761,000 acres
of Appalachian forest will be lost to surface coal mining (Pomponio 2009). This figure does not include
the forest lost prior to 1992. Nearly 7 percent of the forest that still existed in 1992 will be lost to coal
mining by 2013 (Pomponio 2009). Mining has fragmented remaining forests, with resultant negative
ecosystem effects (EPA 2005). Studies have shown that biodiversity and water quality are negatively
affected when greater than 10 percent of the surface area of a watershed has been altered (Yaun and
Norton 2003, Allan 2004, Morgan and Cushman 2005), yet up to 23 percent of the land area of some
counties in Kentucky and West Virginia has been permitted for surface coal mining (U.S. Government
Accountability Office 2009). Mining increases the potential for extreme flooding events, and
reclamation does not restore pre-mining hydrologic characteristics or ecological functions (Townsend et
al. 2009).
Mining often occurs directly through streams or ponds, and mine wastes are pushed directly into streams
and rivers (Dodd 1997, EPA 2005). By 1973, it was estimated that over 18,000 miles of streams in
Appalachia had already been degraded by underground coal mining (Ahmad 1973, Neves et al. 1997).
From 1992-2002, more than 1200 miles of Appalachian streams were buried or degraded by
mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005). At this rate, by the end of 2010, over 2160 miles of
stream will have been destroyed by mountaintop removal. This figure does not incorporate the
thousands of miles of downstream reaches that have been substantially degraded by sedimentation and
chemical pollution from coal mining (Palmer and Bernhardt 2009, Pomponio 2009, Palmer et al. 2010).
In the Clinch and Powell watersheds in southwestern Virginia, where the highest concentration of
imperiled species in the continental United States occurs (Stein et al. 2000), there were 287 active coalmining point-source discharges as of 2002 (Diamond et al. 2002), which have been shown to be
degrading habitat conditions for imperiled species (Ahlstedt et al. 2005). In the Laurel Creek watershed of
the Big Coal River in West Virginia, nearly one-third of total stream length has been buried beneath valley
fills or impacted by surface mines (Palmer and Bernhardt 2009). Thirty of the petitioned species are
specifically threatened by mountaintop removal.
Coal mining negatively impacts aquatic species through direct habitat destruction, decreased water
availability, variations in flow and thermal gradients, and chronic and acute pollution of surface and
ground water (FWS 1996, Neves et al. 1997, Houp 1993, Pond et al. 2008, Palmer and Bernhardt 2009,
Pomponio 2009, Wood 2009, Palmer et al. 2010). Pollution from mining negatively impacts
invertebrates and vertebrates and leads to less diverse and more pollution-tolerant species (Naimo 1995,
Cherry et al. 2001, EPA 2005, Lemly 2009, Pomponio 2009, see also petition section “Other Factors,
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 19

 Pollution”). Surface coal mining and associated road-building increase human access to imperiled
species which can lead to poaching and contribute to the spread of invasive species (FWS 1996).
Surface coal mining also causes long-term changes in land use and local ecology, and threatens the longterm viability of populations due to habitat fragmentation (FWS 1996).
Numerous scientific studies have reported declines in the diversity and abundance of aquatic organisms
resulting from coal mining (Branson and Batch 1972, Vaughan 1979, Matter and Ney 1981, Dodd 1997,
Folkerts 1997, Soucek et al. 2003). Diatom and macroinvertebrate communities are seriously degraded
in mining tributaries (Serveiss 2001, Locke et al. 2006, Carlisle et al. 2008, Pond et al. 2008).
Concerning the extirpation of macroinvertebrates due to surface mining, Wood (2009) states:
“We now have clear evidence that in some streams that drain mountaintop coal quarry valley
fills, the entire order Ephemeroptera (mayflies) has been extirpated, not just certain genera of
this order. We also have evidence that some streams no longer support the order Plecoptera
(stoneflies). . . The loss of an order of insects from a stream is taxonomically equivalent to the
loss of all primates (including humans) from a given area. The loss of two insect orders is
taxonomically equivalent to killing all primates and all rodents through toxic chemicals. Such
adverse ecological impacts are most certainly significant, and they prevent affected streams from
meeting their designated aquatic life uses.”
The loss of macroinvertebrates directly and indirectly impacts stream ecology. Soucek et al. (2003)
found a significant association between decreased abundance of indicator insect species and decreased
growth rates of mussels. Locke et al. (2006) suggest that mining-influenced tributaries are negatively
affecting downstream mussels. Field and laboratory studies implicate sedimentation from mining in the
decline of mussels and snails (Aldridge et al. 1987, Neves et al. 1997). Neves et al. (1997) state, “Many
species of mollusks have been extirpated from headwater streams where mining has been most intense”
(p. 69). Numerous studies have attributed the decline in diversity and abundance of mussels to habitat
loss and degradation resulting from coal mining (Neel and Allen 1964, Stansberry 1969, Ahlstedt and
Brown 1979, Neves et al. 1980, Branson et al. 1984, Anderson 1989, Houp 1993, McCann and Neves
1992, Wolcott and Neves 1994, Naimo 1995, Ahlstedt and Tuberville 1997, Neves et al. 1997, Cherry et
al. 2001, Ahlstedt et al. 2005, Warren and Haag 2005, Locke et al. 2006).
Amphibian diversity and abundance is lower on lands that have been mined (EPA 2005).
Wood (2009) reports that salamanders in headwater stream ecosystems have been significantly
negatively impacted by mountaintop removal coal mining. Concerning the concentration of endemic
salamanders and mussels in coal mining areas, Palmer and Bernhardt (2009) state:
"Where mining activities destroy stream habitat and degrade stream water quality, many of these taxa
become locally extinct, and for species with small geographic distributions, mining activities will
contribute to their global extinction."

Diamond and Serveiss (2001) found that proximity to mining had the greatest impact on the index of
fish biotic integrity. They conclude, “Results may indicate that mining has a profound negative effect on
fish communities.” Lemly (2009) reports that selenium contamination from coal mining can eliminate
entire communities of fish and cause reproductive failure in aquatic birds (Lemly 1985, Ohlendorf
1989). Recovery of aquatic life in mining-waste impacted streams has not been documented, effects are
“pervasive
and irreversible,” and “mitigation cannot compensate for losses” (Palmer et al. 2010).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 20

 Other forms of mining and oil and gas development are also known to be causing severe degradation of
aquatic habitats. In-stream gravel mining and rock removal fragment and destroy habitat for aquatic
insects, mussels, crayfish, and fish (Buckner et al. 2002). Sand and gravel mining have been associated
with both on and off-site mussel extirpation (Hartfield 1993) and with decreased downstream mussel
growth rates (Yokley 1976). Many petitioned species are threatened by sand and gravel mining
including the cobblestone tiger beetle, bluestripe darter, hellbender salamander, and many mussels and
snails. As early as the 1920’s, it was reported that phosphate and iron mines were causing a precipitous
decline in mussel populations (Ortmann 1924). Mining of industrial minerals such as kaolin, mica, and
feldspar also causes loss and degradation of habitat for aquatic species (Tennessee Valley Authority
1971, U.S. EPA 1977, Duda and Penrose 1980). Kaolin mining threatens the petitioned mussel, the
Alabama spike, and the fish, the robust redhorse. Oil and gas development threaten many of the
petitioned mussels.
In sum, many factors are causing the loss and degradation of aquatic habitats in the southeast including
logging, mining, agriculture, development, and recreation. Habitat loss is the leading cause of extinction
globally and poses a dire threat to almost all of the petitioned species.
OVERUTILIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
Overutilization pushes imperiled species towards extinction, especially in conjunction with other threats.
Thirty eight of the petitioned species are threatened by overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes. Overutilization is the primary threat for seven of the petitioned plants
and for many of the petitioned turtles, particularly the map turtles. It is also a primary threat to the
hellbender salamander, which is commonly killed by fishermen. Collection for the pet trade threatens a
few of the petitioned fishes, crayfishes, and amphibians. Historical overuse greatly threatened many of
the petitioned mussels, fishes, and the Florida sandhill crane.
Throughout the southeast reptiles are exploited for use as pets or food, or are killed forthright for
recreational purposes, all which may cause significant population declines (Salzberg 1995, Williams
1995, Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997, Gibbons et al. 2001, Herrig and Shute 2002, Means 2009). Many
southeastern turtle species, such as the Florida red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys nelsoni), are threatened by
overcollection because they are commonly harvested for food (NatureServe 2008). Several southeastern
freshwater turtle species are being driven to extinction by unregulated commercial harvest. The states of
Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, and Tennessee allow unlimited harvest of freshwater turtles.
The international trade in turtles for use as food, pets, or in traditional medicine is extensive and largely
unregulated (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997, Sharma 1999). Over the last decade conservation biologists
have cautioned state wildlife agencies that freshwater turtles in North America are being increasingly
targeted to supply food markets in Asia, particularly China, due to depletion of wild populations of
Asian turtles (Behler 1997). Because the trade in turtles is not regulated, few records have been kept, but
existing records indicate that the trade in live turtles from the United States to China is thousands of tons
per year (Mockenhaupt 1999). According to the U.S. Law Enforcement Management Information
System, from November 2002 to November 2005, nearly 733,000 wild-caught freshwater turtles were
declared as exports from U.S. ports. This number likely underestimates the actual harvest because it
includes only exports and does not include unreported collection. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency reports that more than 25,000 turtles were reported as harvested in Tennessee from 2006-2007.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 21

 Overutilization of imperiled turtle species is especially problematic because the reproductive success of
long-lived reptile species is dependent on high adult survivorship, and population declines occur when
adults are harvested (Brooks et al. 1991, Heppell 1998, Pough et al. 1998, Congdon et al. 1993, 1994).
Reed et al. (2002) found that the removal of as few as two female adult alligator snapping turtles could
halve a population of 200 turtles within 50 years. Congdon et al. (1994) found that the removal of as few
as 10 percent of the adults above 15 years of age could halve a snapping turtle population in 15 years.
Garber and Burger (1995) documented the extirpation of a wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) population
due to the occasional removal of adults by recreational users.
In the southeastern United States, shooting and/or harvesting have contributed to the decline of map
turtles, musk turtles, snapping turtles, and pond turtles (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997). The alligator
snapping turtle (Macroclemys temminckii) has declined as the direct result of overharvest (Sloan and
Lovich 1995). Map turtles in particular are threatened by commercial collection, with adults valuing
hundreds of dollars each on the web (Center for Biological Diversity 2008). Herpetologists from the
Tennessee Aquarium who have conducted map turtle surveys in Florida and Georgia for decades report
drastic population depletion and even extirpation of most southern map turtle species, primarily
attributable to overcollection for the pet trade (George, G.A. pers. comm. 2007). Barbour’s map turtle
(Graptemys barbouri) has declined due to human consumption and collection for the pet trade
(NatureServe 2008). The Pascagoula map turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi) has declined due to commercial
collection and recreational shooting (NatureServe 2008). The black-knobbed map turtle (Graptemys
nigrinoda) is threatened by target shooting and exploitation for the pet trade (NatureServe 2008). The
Escambia map turtle (Graptemys ernsti) is also threatened by shooting, trapping, and commercial
collection (NatureServe 2008).
Overcollection and recreational killing are also a problem for some Southeastern snake and lizard
species (Gibbons et al. 2000, Herrig and Shute 2002). The Apalachicola kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula
pop. 1), Kirtland’s snake (Clonophis kirtlandii), and the Florida Keys mole skink (Eumeces egregius
egregious) are all threatened by overcollection (NatureServe 2008).
Southeastern mussels are also threatened by overutilization, though to a lesser extent than in the past
(Neves et al. 1997). The harvest of southeastern mussel species for commercial purposes is well
documented (Anthony and Downing 2001, Williams et al. 2008). Mussels are collected by humans for
their pearls, meat, and shells, and many populations of mussels have been depleted by harvest in the last
200 years (Strayer 2006). In a single year in the mid-1910’s, more than 13 million kg of mussel shells
were harvested in the state of Illinois alone, and more than 100 million mussels were removed from a
single 73-hectare bed on the Mississippi River (Claassen 1994, Carlander 1954). In 1960, more than
6,700 tons of shells were harvested from Tennessee Valley Authority reservoirs in northern Alabama
(Williams et al. 2008). Although mussel fisheries targeted abundant species, the historical bycatch of
rare species was likely substantial (Strayer 2006). Mussel collection declined by mid-century, but
resurgence in the commercial harvest of native mussels has occurred since the 1960’s to supply nucleus
beads for the cultured pearl trade (Ward 1985, Williams et al. 1993). Wild U.S. populations are the
preferred source for nucleus beads for the Japanese pearl industry, which has increased harvest pressure
on southeastern mussel populations (Williams et al. 1993, Jenkinson and Todd 1997). In 1991 and 1992,
570 tons of shells were harvested from the Wheeler Reservoir on the Tennessee River (Williams et al.
2008). The cultured pearl industry is very unpredictable and cycles with fluctuating market demand
(Williams et al. 2008). The spike in raw shell prices in the early 1990’s resulted in up to 100 commercial
boats simultaneously harvesting single reservoirs (Williams et al. 1993). Most harvested mussels are
common species, but bycatch remains a threat to native mussels. Imperiled native mussels are threatened
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 22

 not only by the amount of harvest, but also by the method used to collect shells, which when conducted
non-selectively, can result in substantial bycatch of non-target species and juveniles (Williams et al.
1993). Although unwanted mussels are thrown back, Sickel (1989) found that mortality of undersized
mussels which are thrown back may be as high as 50 percent. Mussels are threatened not only by
commercial collection, but also by collection from shell collectors and biologists. Very rare species are
particularly threatened by overcollection. Overutlization for biological collections may have contributed
significantly to the decline of the Suwannee Moccasinshell (Medionidus walkeri), for example
(NatureServe 2008).
Other southeastern taxa are also threatened by overexploitation, including amphibians, fish, crayfish,
butterflies, and plants. Amphibians are threatened by overcollection for use as food, for the pet trade,
and for the biological and medicinal supply markets (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009). Southeastern
fishes and crayfishes are vulnerable to overutilization. Crayfishes are threatened by collection for use as
bait or food (Herrig and Shute 2002). The Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehlkei) is threatened by
overcollection for the pet trade (NatureServe 2008). The lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) remains
vulnerable to harvest due to historical overuse (NatureServe 2008). Collection of invertebrates for bait
or the pet trade can deplete populations (Strayer 2006). Collection of the Mitchell's satyr (Neonympha
mitchellii) has contributed substantially to the decline of this rare butterfly (NatureServe 2008).
Collection also threatens the rare skipper (Problema bulenta) (NatureServe 2008). White et al. (1992)
document the removal of an entire population of Panhandle lily (Lilium iridollae) from the Conecuh
National Forest by horticultural collectors.
Overutilization is a threat not just for rare species, but for some species which are currently abundant
due to the magnitude of collection pressure. Buhlmann and Gibbons (1997) state that even presently
abundant southeastern reptile species are of concern because of the vast numbers being removed from
the wild for export.
Rare species which are not currently threatened by overutilization may become threatened at any time as
their perceived value increases. In the proposed rule to list three rare mollusk species, FWS (2009)
states:
“While collection is not considered a current threat, the desirability of these species in scientific
and commercial collections may increase as their existence and rarity becomes known, and their
localized distributions and small population sizes leaves them vulnerable to overzealous
recreational or scientific collecting” (74 FR 31114, p. 8).
The impacts of overutilization compound the threats facing imperiled southeastern species whose
populations have already been reduced due to habitat loss and other factors. Overutilization may drive
species which are already struggling to survive to extinction.
DISEASE AND PREDATION
Disease
Thirty six of the petitioned species are threatened by disease or predation. The spread of disease has
contributed to the decline of aquatic species globally and in the southeastern United States (Daszak et al.
1999, Corser 2000, Gibbons et al. 2000, Cunningham et al. 2003). Amphibians in particular have been
decimated by the spread of disease (Kiesecker et al. 2004). Numerous diseases are contributing to
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 23

 amphibian declines including infections of fungi (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis “chytrid”;
Saprolegnia ferax), ranaviruses, iridoviruses, mesomycetozoae, protozoae, helminthes, and undescribed
diseases (Dodd 1997, Daszak et al. 1999, Briggs et al. 2005, Davis et al. 2007, Peterson et al. 2007). The
most infamous of these, chytrid fungus, affects not only frogs but has also now been reported in both
aquatic and terrestrial salamanders (Davidson et al. 2003, Cummer et al. 2005, Padgett-Flohr and
Longcore 2007). In Alabama, Byrne et al. (2008) recently detected chytrid fungus in the southern twolined salamander (Eurycea cirrigera). The decline of map turtles, musk turtles, snapping turtles, and
pond turtles is partially attributable to disease (Dodd 1988, Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997). For instance,
populations of Barbour's map turtle (Graptemys barbouri) have been afflicted by bacterial disease
(Jacobson et al. 1989) and by a fatal disease of unknown etiology (NatureServe 2008). Southeastern
freshwater fishes are also threatened by diseases, which are being spread by aquacultural operations and
in shipments between fish hatcheries (Kautsky et al. 2000, Naylor et al. 2001, Strayer 2006, Green and
Dodd 2007).
Other threats exacerbate the vulnerability of southeastern aquatic fauna to disease and population
decline. The hellbender, which is direly threatened by both habitat loss and overuse, is also threatened
by disease. Reptile declines have also been attributed to disease (Diemer Berish et al. 2000, Gibbons et
al. 2000). In freshwater fishes, stress-related diseases are prevalent in polluted rivers where chronic, sublethal pollution has increased the susceptibility of organisms to infection (Moyle and Leidy 1992).
Predation
Predation threatens several of the petitioned species. Even natural levels of predation can push imperiled
species towards extinction, especially in conjunction with other threats such as reduced habitat or stress
from factors such as climate change and disease.
Predation threatens the petitioned species across taxa, including reptiles, birds, plants, amphibians,
fishes, crayfishes, and mollusks. Browne and Hecnar (2007) report that heavy predation on turtle nests
from raccoons can be a primary factor limiting recruitment of imperiled turtle populations. For example,
effects of predation can be severe on populations of Florida red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys nelsoni), the
juveniles and eggs of which are preyed upon by raccoons, fish, and corvids (NatureServe 2008).
Drought magnifies the effects of predation on this species due to increased exposure resulting from
reduced water levels (NatureServe 2008). At least two of the petitioned bird species are threatened by
predation. The seaside sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus macgillivraii) is threatened by predation by
rice rats (Post and Greenlaw 1994). The black rail is threatened by predation from various species during
high tides when the rails are forced away from cover (Evens and Page 1986). Two of the petitioned plant
species are known to be threatened by predation. Hall's bulrush (Schoenoplectus hallii) is threatened by
predation from mute swans and Canada geese (McKenzie et al. 2007). The Panhandle Lily (Lilium
iridollae) is threatened by cattle grazing and potentially by insect herbivory (Barrows 1989).
Southeastern amphibians, fishes, and crayfishes are threatened by predation from native and non-native
crayfishes and fishes (NatureServe 2008). The Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) is threatened by
predation of eggs by round gobies (Hay-Chmielewski and Whelan 1997). The streamside salamander is
threatened by predation from fish, flatworms, and water snakes (Petranka 1983, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Predation can contribute heavily to the decline of imperiled mussels because of their restricted
distributions and small population sizes (NatureServe 2008, Rock Pocketbook species account).
Imperiled southeastern mussels are threatened by predation from fishes, muskrats, racoons, otter, mink,
turtles, and some birds (Neves and Odom 1989, Parmalee 1967, Snyder and Snyder 1969). A number of
fish species, including catfishes (Ictalurus spp. and Amieurus spp.) and freshwater drum (Aplodinotus
grunniens) consume large numbers of unionid mussels at certain life stages (NatureServe 2008).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 24

 Domestic and wild hogs tear up mussel beds by rooting (Meek and Clark 1912). As populations of
imperiled mussels continue to shrink, predation becomes an increasing threat. For example, the only
viable population of the Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus) in North Carolina is threatened by
predation from raccoons (Hanlon and Levine 2004). The petitioned fish, the barrens topminnow, is
threatened by predation from introduced mosquitofish.
Disease and predation, alone and in conjunction with other factors, pose serious threats to the survival of
many of the petitioned species. The risks posed by disease and predation are magnified by other
environmental stressors such as habitat loss, pollution, invasive species, and climate change (Gibbons et
al. 2000, Pounds et al. 2006).
INADEQUACY OF EXISTING REGULATORY MECHANISMS
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms at the federal, state, or regional levels that adequately
protect the petitioned species, all of which are at risk of extinction.
Inadequacy of Existing Federal Regulatory Mechanisms
The Clean Water Act
Pollution and habitat loss are two of the largest threats facing the petitioned species, all of which are
dependent on healthy riparian and aquatic habitat for survival. The federal Clean Water Act provides a
basic level of water quality protection for imperiled southeastern species, but is inadequate to ensure
their continued survival without the addition of Endangered Species Act protection and Critical Habitat
designation. The provisions of the Clean Water Act are inadequate to protect the petitioned species
because pollution from point and non-point sources is causing ongoing degradation of water quality,
current water quality standards are not effectively protecting sensitive species or sensitive
developmental stages of species, and loss of stream and wetland habitat continues.
The Environmental Protection Agency and individual states regulate point sources of pollution under the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), under which point sources are licensed and
maximum pollutant discharge concentrations are set. The NPDES system is not adequate to protect the
petitioned species from the negative effects of pollution because permits may be issued with few
restrictions, cumulative effects of all the point sources within a watershed are not taken into
consideration when permits are issued, and state governments often lack the resources or political will to
monitor and enforce permits (Buckner et al. 2002). Concerning the failure of the current permitting
system to protect aquatic habitats, Morse et al. (1997) state:
“Industrial effluent provides point sources of pollution that can harm streams. Reducing or
stopping these problems is often complicated by legal, political, and economic circumstances,
with regulators, private citizens, lawmakers, employers, and employees often at odds. The
wheels are turning very slowly to rectify existing legal uncertainties associated with industrial
effluent” (p. 24).
In the Southeast in particular, adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect aquatic habitats from pollution
are lacking due to jurisdictional issues and conflicting priorities:

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 25

 “Federal-state and intra- and interstate coordination is confounded within southeastern states
primarily because jurisdiction over water, waterways, and the aquatic fauna is fragmented among
agencies with different and often contradictory regulatory mandates (e.g., providing drinking
water versus recreational fishing versus waste disposal)” (Warren et al. 1997, p. 124).
The southeast also has a history of lax enforcement of environmental laws:
“In many ways, the southeastern United States has been treated as a Third World country by the
rest of the nation, or, perhaps more accurately, by industrial interests throughout the world.
Industrial sitings in the region have often been based on the same criteria used to site plants in
Latin American countries, i.e., lower salaries can be paid, tax rates on industries are lower, and
perhaps most importantly, pollution laws and other measures to preserve environmental integrity
are poorly enforced and easily circumvented by using political pressure” (Folkerts 1997, p. 11).
The socioeconomic setting in the southeast is such that when conflicts arise between economic
development and species protection, economic development generally prevails (FWS 1997).
Even if existing laws were strictly enforced, current water quality standards are not sufficient to protect
sensitive species or sensitive life-stages of species. Water-quality standards are not based on toxicity
testing of rare species, and some aquatic organisms are more sensitive to pollutants than the organisms
which are used to establish the standards (Herrig and Shute 2002). Permitted activities may thus
negatively affect rare aquatic species. Most species of mollusks are intolerant of chronic exposure to
polluted water (Neves et al. 1997). Neves et al. (1997) state, “As judged by the decline and degree of
rarity of mollusks in southeastern rivers, criteria to protect this faunal group are urgently needed” (p.
68). The glochidia of mussels may be more sensitive to pollution than adult forms (Neves et al. 1997).
Further, current standards are for surface water quality, and because sediments store and accumulate
toxins, benthic species are not adequately protected by existing criteria.
FWS has been aware for more than a decade that existing regulations are not adequately protecting
imperiled mollusks. In a 1994 proposed rule to protect five species of southeastern mussels under the
Endangered Species Act, FWS stated:
“Existing authorities available to protect aquatic systems, such as the Clean Water Act,
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers,
have not been fully utilized and may have led to the degradation of aquatic environments in the
Southeast Region, thus resulting in a decline of aquatic species” (59 FR 35901).
In the 1997 final rule, responding to an EPA request for clarification concerning the above statement,
FWS wrote:
“Through EPA’s implementation of the CWA, water quality has been improved and mussel
populations have benefited. However, in spite of general water quality
improvements, numerous freshwater mussel populations in the southeastern
United States are continuing to decline even in areas that appear to have suitable physical habitat.
The Service believes that it is likely that some insidious environmental factor(s), possibly
contaminants, may be adversely affecting the growth, reproduction, or survival of these
populations. Of all the potential impacts to mussels, less is known about the potential effects of

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 26

 contaminants on these species. The Service believes that EPA could, through the CWA, play a
more active role in identifying potential contaminant impacts to mussels” (62 FR 1647, p. 1653).
In 2009 in the proposed rule to list three imperiled southeastern mollusks, FWS acknowledged that
water quality criteria and enforcement are still inadequate to protect sensitive aquatic species:
“Current State and Federal regulations regarding pollutants are assumed to be protective of
freshwater mollusks; however, these species may be more susceptible to some pollutants than
test organisms commonly used in bioassays. For example, several recent studies have suggested
that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) criteria for ammonia may not be protective
of freshwater mussels (Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 2571; Augspurger et al. 2007, p. 2026; Newton
et al. 2003, pp. 2559– 2560; Newton and Bartsch 2007, p 2057; Ward et al. 2007, p. 2075). In a
review of the effects of eutrophication on mussels, Patzner and Muller (2001, p. 329) noted that
stenoecious (narrowly tolerant) species disappear as waters become more eutrophic. They also
refer to studies that associate increased levels of nitrate with the decline and absence of juvenile
mussels (Patzner and Muller 2001, pp. 330–333). Other studies have also suggested that early
life stages of mussels are more sensitive to metals and such inorganic chemicals as chlorine and
ammonia than are common bioassay test organisms (Keller and Zam 1991, pp. 543–545;
Goudreau et al. 1993, p. 221; Naimo 1995, pp. 354–355). Therefore, it appears that inadequate
research and data prevent existing regulations, such as the Clean Water Act (administered by the
EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), from being fully utilized or effective in the
management and protection of these species” (74 FR 31120).
Existing regulations are also inadequate to protect aquatic species from nonpoint sources of pollution
such as agricultural, residential, and urban runoff, which are generally approached in a non-regulated,
voluntary manner. Agricultural runoff accounts for over 70 percent of impaired U.S. river kilometers,
yet is largely exempt from permitting requirements (Neves et al. 1997). Some Confined Animal Feeding
Operations are considered to be non-point sources of discharge, with regulations varying from state to
state which allows gross amounts of pollution to enter waterways (Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Lack of
effective regulatory mechanisms to control non-point source pollution poses a dire threat to aquatic
species:
“Still lacking are the legislative means to significantly reduce nonpoint runoff from agricultural
and urban areas. . . nonpoint problems . . . continue to degrade water quality and jeopardize all
aquatic biodiversity in southeastern streams” (Neves et al. 1997, p. 66).
Existing regulations are also inadequate to protect Southeastern aquatic species from accidental spills
from retention ponds which are used to store wastes from agriculture, coal-fired power plants, coal
mining, and other activities (Herrig and Shute 2002).
Further, the Clean Water Act is not effective at preventing activities within a watershed which
negatively impact water quality, and the health of aquatic systems needs to be evaluated and regulated
on a watershed-wide scale:
“Voluminous research and management experience have clearly documented the
interdependence of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems for the overall health of biota (Pajak et al.
1994). However, the implementation of this knowledge through effective and comprehensive
policy change has been egregiously slow” (Neves et al. 1997, p. 66).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 27

 Under the Clean Water Act, loss of stream and wetland habitat is ongoing. In Appalachia, from 19922002 the EPA permitted the filling of more than 1200 miles of headwater streams for surface coal
mining activities (EPA 2005). Headwater streams harbor unique aquatic species, diverse invertebrate
assemblages, and provide nutrients that are critical for fish and other downstream organisms (EPA
2005). The permitted filling of streams for surface coal mining is causing permanent downstream
pollution and loss of biodiversity (Neves et al. 1997, Pond et al. 2008, Pomponio 2009, Wood 2009,
Palmer et al. 2010).
The permitted filling of wetlands is also ongoing. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act sets as a goal no
net loss of wetlands, but this is not a required outcome of permit decisions (Connolly et al. 2005). In
fiscal year 2003, the Army Corps of Engineers issued 4,035 permits for the destruction of natural
wetlands, while denying only 299 permits (Connolly et al. 2005). Lost wetlands are required to be
replaced by mitigation wetlands, but mitigation wetlands often differ in structure, function, and
community composition from the natural wetlands which are destroyed (Holland et al. 1995). Mitigation
requirements are also not strictly enforced. Mitigation “represents a promise that the permittees will
perform the mitigation in the future. Unfortunately, permittees are often unable or unwilling to comply
with compensatory mitigation requirements” (Connolly et al. 2005, p. 262). Mitigation is rarely effective
in preserving biodiversity (Cabbage et al. 1993; Water Environment Federation 1993). Moreover, small,
isolated wetlands which provide essential habitat for many species of amphibians and reptiles are not
adequately protected under the Clean Water Act and continue to be lost:
“[S]mall wetlands are extremely valuable for maintaining biodiversity . . . the loss of small
wetlands will cause a direct reduction in the connectance among remaining species populations,
and . . . both existing and recently proposed legislation are inadequate for maintaining the
biodiversity of wetland flora and fauna” (Semlitsch and Bodie 1998).
Many species of amphibians, reptiles, and insects require both wetland and upland habitat to complete
their life cycles, and wetland protection criteria don’t protect the upland habitats these species need to
survive (Dodd 1997). For instance, Burke and Gibbons (1995) documented turtles nesting and wintering
in forested upland habitats outside the boundaries of federal wetland delineation lines.
In sum, the Clean Water Act is not adequate to protect the petitioned species from the threats of habitat
loss and degradation and pollution.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) is intended to prevent the
degradation of aquatic habitats from coal mining activities. Due to increased demand for coal, lax
enforcement of environmental law, and deference to economic development over species’ protection,
SMCRA is not adequately protecting aquatic species. For example, neither SMCRA nor the Clean Water
Act have been effective in preventing the continued decline of the Black Warrior waterdog, a petitioned
amphibian (Dodd et al. 1986, Mettee et al. 1989, Hartfield 1990, Bailey and Guyer 1998, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1998). Further, sedimentation from active mines is a primary contributor to the decline
of mollusks due to water quality degradation, shell erosion, and reproductive failure (Anderson 1989,
Houp 1993, Neves et al. 1997). FWS has acknowledged that mining activities continue to be permitted
even when imperiled species are placed at risk:

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 28

 “[I]t has been the Service’s experience, after dealing with hundreds of mining projects, that in
nearly all cases where there is a conflict between endangered species and a mining project, the
project is permitted with only minor modifications” (FWS 1997, p. 1651).
Reclamation required under SMCRA is not rigorously enforced (Ward 2009). Even when reclamation is
conducted, it has not resulted in the restoration of pre-mining hydrologic characteristics or ecological
functions (Townsend et al. 2009). Concerning the failure of the reclamation requirements of SMCRA to
protect biodiversity or stream health, Palmer et al. (2010) state:
“Current mitigation strategies are meant to compensate for lost stream habitat and functions but
do not; water-quality degradation caused by mining activities is neither prevented nor corrected
during reclamation or mitigation. Clearly, current attempts to regulate mountaintop
mining/valley fill practices are inadequate. Mining permits are being issued despite the
preponderance of scientific evidence that impacts are pervasive and irreversible and that
mitigation cannot compensate for losses” (p. 149).
National Wildlife Refuges
Several of the petitioned species occur on National Wildlife Refuges. The species that occur on refuges
enjoy some degree of habitat protection because refuges are managed by FWS primarily to conserve
fish, wildlife, and plant resources. However, these species are still threatened with extinction for several
reasons. Management priority is generally given to more charismatic species and conservation actions
are limited by available funding and staffing. Refuges are managed under conservation plans that
provide guidance for planning and management decisions but they do not constitute a commitment for
staffing or funding, and refuge budget and staffing levels are usually inadequate to implement preferred
management actions. Due to lack of fiscal resources, the implementation of conservation actions is thus
uncertain. Species that occur on refuges also face threats from historical habitat degradation, climate
change, invasive species, recreation, and poaching.
National Recreation Areas
National Recreation Areas are managed under broad guidelines which provide theoretical protections for
species which occur within their boundaries, but their management plans are not focused on species’
protection. The implementation and effectiveness of actual protections for imperiled species is uncertain.
National Forests
Several of the petitioned species occur on National Forests. National Forest management plans provide
guidelines for species’ protection, but these guidelines are generally discretionary. National forests are
mandated to produce a specified amount of timber, which gives preference to resource extraction over
species’ protection. Species which occur on National Forests are at heightened risk of habitat loss and
degradation from timber harvest and recreation.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 protects selected rivers in free-flowing condition and protects
their immediate environments to safeguard water quality and to fulfill national conservation purposes.
Wild and Scenic designation provides some protection for the species which occur within these reaches.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 29

 It does not adequately protect the petitioned species, however, because there are very few designated
Wild and Scenic stretches in the southeast, they do not provide habitat protection beyond a narrow
corridor, and because many of the areas of highest aquatic biodiversity are not included in the system
(Neves et al. 1997).
Inadequacy of Existing State Regulatory Mechanisms
State Fish and Wildlife Departments
Some of the petitioned species are listed as threatened or endangered by state fish, wildlife, and game
departments, but state endangered and threatened species designations generally do not provide species
with meaningful regulatory protection or with any habitat protection. Many of the species are classified
as Species of Conservation Priority or Species of Greatest Conservation Need under state Wildlife
Action Plans or Wildlife Conservation Strategies. These documents provide a framework for
conservation, but are not regulatory documents and do not contain mandatory or enforceable provisions
to protect species or their habitat. Further, the implementation of conservation strategies is dependent on
the cooperation of resource managers and stakeholders, making their implementation and effectiveness
uncertain. Partner involvement in recommended conservation actions is voluntary, and is limited by the
statutory requirements and permitted degree of discretion of partner agencies.
State conservation priorities and initiatives are also sharply limited by funding, with charismatic and
game species generally receiving the majority of resources. Warren et al. (1997) state:
“[M]any state-based programs for non-game fishes are left to languish on “soft” money, are
underemphasized, and lack the force of institutional will or statutory authority, short of federal
mandate, to effect change” (p. 123).
The focus of conservation strategies is also generally on vertebrates, making them inadequate to protect
imperiled invertebrate species:
“Conservation of freshwater invertebrates has been hampered by the severity of human impacts
to fresh waters and their inhabitants, the very limited resources (money, scientific effort) that
have been applied to conservation problems, frequent adherence to a conservation approach that
was developed largely for terrestrial birds and mammals, and an overly reactive approach, in
which conservation activities often have been reactions to acute threats rather than actions
designed to enhance long-term population viability. Consequently, conservation activities have
been and will continue to be inadequate to protect freshwater invertebrate populations and
species” (Strayer 2006, p. 272).
Concerning the lack of funding to protect imperiled southeastern mollusks, Neves et al. (1997) state:
“With such an underfunded effort by regulatory agencies to maintain the biological diversity and
integrity of rivers in this region, it is little wonder that the extirpation and extinction of mollusks
is occurring at an accelerated pace” (p. 76).
Some states have regulations to protect some wildlife species from direct take, but these regulations are
not comprehensive, are generally poorly enforced, and are not adequate to protect wildlife from other
threats (FWS 1997). Even though states often prohibit the take of fish and wildlife without a collecting
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 30

 permit, permit enforcement is difficult (FWS 1997). Invertebrates are sometimes protected by harvest
regulations such as bag limits, size regulations, and seasonal closures, but these regulations are
challenging to enforce, and enforcement efforts are dependent on available funding.
Natural Heritage Programs
State Natural Heritage Programs maintain an inventory and database on the conservation status of
species and biological communities and participate in and contribute to various conservation strategies.
Natural Heritage Programs, however, lack regulatory authority. While their designations call attention to
the plight of imperiled species, they do not convey any regulatory protection.
Other Regulatory Mechanisms and Protections
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is an international agreement
between governments that aims to ensure that the international trade of wild animals and plants does not
threaten their survival. CITES listing conveys some degree of protection to a few of the petitioned
species, but is inadequate to ensure their continued survival. For example, highly sought after species,
such as rare map turtles, are threatened by the international pet trade despite being protected under
CITES (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of Habitat Preserves
Habitat protection is an essential component of species’ preservation. Habitat preserves alone, however,
are insufficient to protect imperiled species due to threats from a host of other factors including climate
change, poaching, pollution, and genetic isolation due to lack of habitat connectivity. The survival of
species within refuges depends on the level of protection in the refuge as well as on a variety of external
factors that influence habitat conditions. Browne and Hecnar (2007) document the decline of turtles in
protected habitat due to low-level recreational collection. They conclude, “Our study illustrates that
habitat protection provides no guarantee for species persistence when multiple threats exist.” All
activities within the watershed influence the quality of aquatic habitats in protected areas. As FWS
acknowledged in the Mobile Basin Recovery Plan (2000), “stream and river refugia can only be
maintained by appropriate land and water stewardship within their respective watersheds.” For example,
pollution entering protected areas from activities being conducted outside their boundaries threatens
otherwise protected species. Neves et al. (1997) report that hazardous wastes and toxic chemicals are
jeopardizing imperiled mussels at a state-designated mussel sanctuary at the confluence of the
Tennessee and Ohio Rivers. As Folkerts (1997) surmises, “[I]t is clear that isolated preserves are not a
long-term answer to the maintenance of aquatic biodiversity” (p. 12).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 31

 Fig. 4. Federal Lands of the Southeast. The majority of land in the Southeast is privately owned.

Land Ownership Patterns
The vast majority of land in the southeast is privately owned. In the Tennessee, Cumberland, and Mobile
River basins, for example, more than 87 percent of land is privately owned (Buckner et al. 2002).
Private land use is either not regulated or only loosely regulated throughout much of the region (Buckner
et al. 2002). A great deal of the habitat for rare aquatic species in the southeast is not controlled by
federal or state governments, and protection of the most biologically valuable watersheds is not
available through governmental ownership (Neves et al. 1997). Most southeastern forests are in private
ownership, including 70 percent of Alabama’s forests and more than 80 percent of forests in the
Tennessee and Cumberland basins (Buckner et al. 2002). Forestry “best management practices” to
control erosion and protect aquatic species are not mandated or voluntarily followed in the majority of
southeastern forests, and extensive clearcutting and poor logging practices threaten aquatic species due
to sedimentation, landslides, and degraded water quality (Buckner et al. 2002). There are no existing
regulatory mechanisms that protect imperiled species on private lands in the southeast.
In sum, existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to protect the petitioned species. Without the
effective protection of the Endangered Species Act, these species are likely to become extinct.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 32

 OTHER NATURAL OR HUMAN CAUSED FACTORS
Southeastern aquatic and riparian species are threatened by multiple other natural and human-caused
factors including pollution, global climate change, drought, invasive species, and synergies between
multiple threats.
POLLUTION
Pollution threatens two-thirds of the petitioned species, including 81 percent of the animals. Throughout
North America, the imperilment of freshwater fauna has been linked to extensive habitat degradation
caused by pollution (Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1999). Southeastern waterways are degraded by point and
non-point source pollution from a variety of sources including agriculture, forestry, urban and suburban
development, coal mining, and coal combustion wastes. Non-point source pollution, or runoff, is
difficult to document, but its impact on aquatic species is both pervasive and persistent (Schuster 1997).
Neves et al. (1997) call non-point source pollution an “insidious factor in aquatic ecosystem
degradation.” Non-point source pollution is the most common factor adversely impacting the nation’s
fish communities, with more than 80 percent of fish being negatively affected (Judy et al. 1982). The
Service has acknowledged that southeastern aquatic habitats are threatened by cumulative, progressive
degradation from unregulated, non-point source pollution, the effects of which are contributing to the
extirpation of aquatic species:
“In many cases, it is small, everyday, nonregulated activities considered “insignificant” by most
of us that will ultimately cause continued decline and extinction of the (Mobile) Basin’s aquatic
species. . . While the detrimental effect of any one source or land use activity may be
insignificant by itself, the combined effects of land use runoff within a watershed may result in
gradual and cumulative
adverse impacts to isolated populations and their habitats” (FWS 2000).
Both non-point and point source pollution are pushing southeastern aquatic species towards extinction
by carrying sediments, contaminants, nutrients, and other pollutants into waterways.
Sedimentation, Contamination, and Nutrient Loading
Sedimentation is one of the primary causes of habitat degradation in southeastern waterways (Neves et
al. 1997). Sedimentation and siltation result from a variety of activities including agriculture, forestry,
development, and mining, with silt reaching waterways during both ground-disturbing activities and
storm events (FWS 2000). Suspended sediment threatens the entire aquatic community, from fish to
invertebrates to birds. Richter et al. (1997) identify sedimentation as the major stressor affecting the
ability of aquatic animals to recover from declines.
In the southeast, sedimentation is responsible for nearly 40 percent of fish imperilment problems (Etnier
1997). Sedimentation has both direct and indirect negative effects on fish. Suspended sediments cut and
clog gills and interfere with respiration. Sedimentation blocks light penetration, which interferes with
feeding for species like minnows and darters which feed by sight (Etnier and Starnes 1993). For species
which feed by flipping over rocks and consuming the disturbed insects, sedimentation increases the
embededness of rocks, making them more difficult to move and decreasing habitat suitability for aquatic
invertebrate prey (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Sedimentation also interferes with feeding behavior for
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 33

 nocturnal feeders like catfish and imperiled madtoms which catch aquatic insects by relying on the
sensitivity of their barbels and on chemoreception, both of which are negatively affected by
sedimentation (Todd 1973, Buckner et al. 2002). Benthic species require specific substrate conditions
for spawning, feeding, and cover, all of which are degraded by sedimentation (Etnier and Starnes 1993,
Warren et al. 1997).When sedimentation fills in the crevices between and beneath rocks, it decreases the
availability of cover for resting and predator evasion (Herrig and Shute 2002). Madtoms, darters,
suckers, and some minnows deposit their eggs on or near the substrate, and sedimentation interferes with
their reproduction both by decreasing habitat suitability and by directly smothering eggs. Benthic fishes
are also negatively affected by toxins which are stored in sediments (Reice and Wohlenberg 1993).
Ultimately, excessive sedimentation can eliminate fish species from an area by rendering their habitat
unsuitable (FWS 2000).
Likewise, excessive sedimentation has strong, persistent negative effects on freshwater invertebrates
(Strayer 2006). Siltation is one of the primary factors implicated in the decline of freshwater mollusks
(Williams et al. 1993). Neves et al. (1997) state, “[P]eriodic additions of sediment have profound effects
on the long-term sustainability of mollusk populations” (p. 68). Suspended sediments have both direct
and indirect negative affects on mollusks. Sedimentation clogs the gills of mussels and snails and can
cause suffocation (FWS 2000). Sedimentation reduces feeding efficiency both by interfering with
respiration for filter feeders and by coating the algae which snails scrape from rocks (FWS 2000).
Decreased visibility due to sedimentation can interfere with mussel reproduction by making it difficult
for host fishes to detect glochidia (Neves et al. 1997). Sedimentation also reduces substrate suitability
(Herrig and Shute 2002).
Aquatic insects are also threatened by excessive sediment levels. Stoneflies (Plecoptera) and mayflies
(Ephemeroptera) are intolerant of siltation and disappear from impacted streams (Morse et al. 1997).
Increased siltation impacts the ability of dragonflies and damselflies to survive (Morse et al. 1997).
Caddisflies, which require spaces among rocks for shelter and stable surfaces for grazing, are also
negatively impacted by siltation (Morse et al. 1997). Sedimentation and other pollutants from
mountaintop removal coal mining operations are completely extirpating aquatic macroinvertebrate
communities. In some streams that drain mountaintop removal operations, the entire orders of
Plecoptera and Ephemeroptera have been extirpated (Wood 2009). Sedimentation is also negatively
impacting rare ground-water inhabiting species of isopods and amphipods (Herrig and Shute 2002).
In addition to sediments, contaminants, such as heavy metals, pesticides, and persistent organic
pollutants, threaten aquatic species. In a nationwide assessment of streambed sediment contaminants, the
EPA found that 43 percent of sediments are probably associated with harmful effects on aquatic life or
human health, and that six to 12 percent of streambed sediment is sufficiently contaminated to cause
significant lethality to benthic organisms (EPA 2004b). Southeastern rivers are laden with a variety of
toxic chemicals, with the lower Mississippi receiving contaminants from half the continent (Folkerts
1997). Atlanta was recently named the most toxic city in America (Levy 2009). Contaminants have both
lethal and sub-lethal negative effects on aquatic species and may interfere with immunity, growth, and
reproduction (Colborn et al. 1993, Gibbons et al. 2000). Selenium contamination from surface coal
mining is causing teratogenic deformities in larval fish (Palmer et al. 2010). Many contaminants have
negative effects that will persist for centuries (Folkerts 1997).
Aquatic species are threatened both by chronic low-level contaminant pollution and acute exposure from
accidental spills. For instance, in October 2009, a wastewater spill from a coal mine on the West
Virginia-Pennsylvania border killed all the fish, salamanders, and mussels in 35 miles of 38-mile- long
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 34

 Dunkard Creek (Hopey 2009). Endemic species in particular are at high risk from accidental spills.
Because many aquatic species exist only in small, isolated populations, a single spill event could drive a
species to extinction. Even in otherwise protected habitats, the survival of freshwater species is
threatened by acute and chronic exposure to contaminants.
Contaminants threaten aquatic species across taxa. Declines in many fish species are attributed to
chronic, sub-lethal pollution, which causes reduced growth, reduced reproductive success and increased
risk of death from stress-related diseases (Moyle and Leidy 1992). Cavefishes and other species that are
directly dependent on groundwater levels are disproportionately threatened by contaminants, which
become concentrated if a drop in groundwater levels reduces the volume of springflow (Herrig and
Shute 2002). Chemoreception in blind cavefishes can be disrupted by contaminants from surface aquifer
recharge areas (Herrig and Shute 2002). Chronic low-level exposure to contaminants may be preventing
the recovery of imperiled species of mollusks (FWS 1997). Juvenile mussels in particular are sensitive
to heavy metals and other pollutants (Naimo 1995, Neves et al. 1997). Amphibians may be
disproportionately threatened by contaminants. All life stages of many amphibian species are sensitive
to toxins (AmphibiaWeb 2009). Many substances can be toxic for amphibians, including heavy metals,
pesticides, phenols, fertilizers, roadsalt, mining waste, and chemicals in runoff (Dodd 1997). Changes in
pH can adversely affect amphibian eggs and larvae, and can inhibit growth and feeding in adults (Dodd
1997). Amphibians are threatened by accidental and intentional pesticide treatments. For instance, in
October 2009, a pesticide treatment intended to kill lampreys in the Lamoille River caused a large-scale
die-off of mudpuppies (Johnson 2009).
Contaminants negatively impact aquatic species at the level of individuals, populations, and species.
Fish, turtles, and other aquatic animals assimilate pesticides, heavy metals, and other persistent
pollutants into their tissues (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997, de Solla and Fernie 2004). Animals at higher
levels of the food web can accumulate considerable levels of toxins. Significant concentrations of
numerous contaminants have been detected in southeastern freshwater turtles including pesticides such
as aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, mirex, nonachlor, and toxaphene, and metals such as
aluminum, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel,
strontium, and zinc (Meyers-Schöne and Walton 1994). Contaminant exposure can disrupt normal
endocrine functioning, thus threatening survival and reproduction (Colborn et al. 1993). Turtles exposed
to PCBs have exhibited sex reversal and abnormal gonadal development, and alligators exposed to
various contaminants have shown altered testosterone levels and gonadal abnormalities (Guillette et al.
1994, 1995). Water snakes in wetlands that have been contaminated by coal ash exhibit altered
metabolic activity (Hopkins et al. 1999). Endocrine disruption caused by contaminants can lead to
demographic shifts in aquatic reptile populations (Gibbons et al. 2000). Bioaccumulation of
contaminants has contributed to the decline of map turtles, musk turtles, snapping turtles, and pond
turtles (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997).
Nutrient loading also threatens southeastern aquatic species. Excessive nitrates and phosphates entering
waterways from point and non-point sources can lead to algal blooms, eutrophication, and depleted
dissolved oxygen, which can be lethal for aquatic organisms (Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Some algal
blooms are toxic, and can cause direct mortality. The toxic dinoflagellates Pfiesteria piscicida and P.
shumwayae have bloomed downstream of Confined Animal Feeding Operations in the Neuse, New, and
Pamlico River estuaries in North Carolina (Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Even at sub-lethal levels, nutrient
loading threatens aquatic species via many mechanisms. For example, excessive phosphate levels,
especially in combination with the herbicide atrazine, have been shown to increase trematode infections
in amphibians, leading to amphibian deformities (Johnson and Sutherland 2003, Rohr et al. 2008).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 35

 Nutrients, contaminants, sediments, and other pollutants reach southeastern waterways from a variety of
sources, discussed below.
Agriculture
Non-point source pollution from agriculture is the leading source of water quality impairment in lakes
and rivers in the United States, and is also a major contributor to groundwater contamination and
wetlands degradation (EPA 2009). Agricultural pollution carries sediment, pesticides, fertilizers, animal
wastes, pathogens, salts, and petroleum particles into waterways (Morse et al. 1997, EPA 2009). In the
southeast, agricultural fields are commonly plowed to the edges of rivers and streams, which causes
erosion and stream bank collapse and deposits tons of soil into waterways annually (Buckner et al.
2002).
Pesticide contamination is pervasive in agricultural areas, and the most commonly detected pesticide in
U.S. waters is atrazine. In a U.S. Geological Survey study of agricultural areas, 75 percent of stream
water samples nationwide contained atrazine (Gilliom et al. 2006). Based on Ecological Monitoring
Program data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, surface waters of the southern United
States are pervasively contaminated with atrazine, with the chemical being detected in every watershed
sampled (U.S. EPA 2007, Wu et al. 2009). In 63 percent of watersheds, atrazine was present at average
levels greater than one part per billion (ppb), which is the level at which primary productivity of aquatic
nonvascular plants is known to be reduced (Ibid.). In Kentucky, atrazine was detected in 69 and 97
percent of surface water in the two sampled watersheds, at average concentrations of 0.66 parts per
billion (ppb) and 2.08 ppb, and maximum concentrations of 19 and 22 ppb, which is many times above
the threshold for negative affects in aquatic biota (U.S. EPA 2007, Wu et al. 2009). Atrazine was also
detected at high frequencies and levels in surface water in Tennessee and in drinking water in Louisiana
(Ibid.). Atrazine contamination threatens southeastern aquatic species, with the toxic and endocrine
disrupting effects of atrazine being well established (Wu et al. 2009). Detrimental reproductive effects
have been detected in amphibians and mammals at very low exposure levels-- concentrations as low as
0.1 ppb are known to cause endocrine disruption in amphibians (Hayes et al. 2002). Moreover,
developmental timing of exposure can increase susceptibility to adverse effects, as can synergistic
interactions with other contaminants (Colborn et al. 1993, Colborn 2004, 2006, Wu et al. 2009).
Animal holding lots and confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are a major source of pollution in
the southeast (Neves et al. 1997). Animal wastes may be discharged directly into streams, applied to
fields, or stored in lagoons (Buckner et al. 2002). CAFOs produce enormous amounts of nitrogen and
phosphorus. On the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, CAFOs produce 124,000 metric tons of nitrogen
and 29,000 metric tons of phosphorus on an annual basis (Mallin and Cahoon 2003). In 1998, 41,000
metric tons of nitrogen and 16,000 metric tons of phosphorus entered the Neuse River watershed from
CAFOs (Glasgow and Burkholder 2000). These nutrients enter the environment and contribute to the
eutrophication of waterbodies via runoff, volatilization of ammonia, or by percolating intro groundwater
(Mallin and Cahoon 2003). CAFOs cause both chronic and acute pollution. Extreme weather events, lax
management, and lagoon ruptures have led to acute pollution events from CAFOs. In 1995, lagoon
ruptures spilled millions of gallons of swine and poultry wastes into the New River and Cape Fear River
basins in North Carolina, causing fish kills and algal blooms (Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Decaying
animal carcasses are also a significant source of nutrient pollution from CAFOS, especially following
extreme weather events (Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Within the area flooded by Hurricane Floyd in 1999,
there were 241 CAFOs and numerous livestock were drowned and their carcasses entered the
environment via floodwaters (Wing et al. 2002). In addition to nutrient loading, CAFOs release
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 36

 pharmaceuticals and hormones into aquatic habitats (Orlando et al. 2004). Significant amounts of
estrogens and androgens have been detected in waterways that receive runoff from fields where animal
wastes are applied (Finlay-Moore et al. 2000). Growth promoters and antibiotics have been detected in
both surface and groundwater in agricultural areas (Peterson et al. 2000).
Pollution from agriculture has profound negative effects on water quality and aquatic species (Patrick
1992). Sediments and contaminants from agricultural runoff are contributing to the decline of sensitive
fish and mussels (Neves et al. 1997, Herrig and Shute 2002). Algal blooms and lower dissolved oxygen
concentrations due to nutrient loading can kill sessile benthic organisms such as mollusks and can create
zones in which fish cannot survive (Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Chemicals in the effluent from CAFOs
and feedlots can disrupt the endocrine and reproductive systems of wild species. Orlando et al. (2004)
documented significant alterations in the reproductive biology of wild minnows (Pimephales promelas)
exposed to feedlot effluent, including demasculinization of males and defeminization of females.
Hormones in ponds below cattle holding facilities have been associated with endocrine disruption in
female turtles (Irwin et al. 2001).
Aquacultural operations also contribute significant amounts of pollution to southeastern aquatic habitats.
Wastewaters from aquacultural operations contain sediments, nutrients, pharmaceuticals, and pathogens,
all of which threaten native aquatic biota (Tacon and Forster 2003). Catfish farms, the biggest
aquacultural enterprise in the nation, release effluents into the environment during heavy rainfall events
and during pond draining (Tucker and Hargreaves 2003). Trout farms generate large amounts of nutrient
pollution and are generally built on outstanding resource waterways (Morse et al. 1997).
Louisiana is the world’s largest producer of farm-raised crayfish, with crayfish ponds being drained
annually releasing effluent into the environment (Holdich 1993).
Shrimp pond effluent leads to hypernutrification of estuaries (Hopkins et al. 1995).
Forestry
Pollution from logging poses a dire threat to southeastern species. The Alabama Department of
Environment Management cites sediment from silviculture as one of the major contributors to water
quality impairment in the Mobile Basin. Logging contributes sediments and herbicides to waterways,
degrading habitat for aquatic organisms. Erosion from deforestation and poor forestry practices
increases silt loading and makes stream bottoms unstable, both of which threaten mollusks and other
aquatic organisms (Williams et al. 1993). Herbicides used to kill hardwoods and herbaceous vegetation
may be harmful to amphibians and other species (Dodd 1997). Some herbicides used in forestry
operations are toxic to algae and interfere with aquatic ecology (Austin et al. 1991). Effluent from pulp
mills where logging products are processed also threatens southeastern aquatic species (Folkerts 1997).
Urban and Industrial Development
Pollution from urban, suburban, and industrial development is a major threat to aquatic species in the
southeastern United States. Point source pollution from manufacturing sites, power plants, and sewage
treatment plants is a major cause of aquatic habitat degradation (Morse et al. 1997). In southeastern
watersheds, point sources of pollution are “remarkably dense and coincide heavily with critical
conservation areas identified at expert workshops” (Buckner et al. 2002). Non-point source pollution
from urban and industrial areas contributes sediment, contaminants, nutrients, and other pollutants to
waterways. Runoff from urban and suburban areas includes many substances which are harmful for

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 37

 aquatic organisms including petroleum particles, highway salts, silt, fertilizers, pesticides, surfactants,
and pet wastes (Neves et al. 1997, Buckner et al. 2002).
Many municipalities have inadequate sewage treatment systems which can release raw sewage into
waterways during heavy rainfall events (Buckner at al. 2002). Chemicals in both raw and untreated
sewage can negatively affect aquatic organisms. Many waterbodies are now known to be polluted with
pharmaceuticals such as caffeine, pain killers, antibiotics, antihistamines, antidepressants, and oral
contraceptives, the effects of which on aquatic wildlife are poorly understood (Kolpin et al. 2002). In an
EPA pilot study of the occurrence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in wild fish,
antidepressants, antihistamines, and fragrances were all detected in fish tissues (EPA 2009b). Many
common chemicals are now known to cause endocrine disruption in wildlife (Colborn et al. 1993).
Endocrine mimics can cause thyroid dysfunction, metabolic aberrations, lowered fertility, birth defects,
decreased immunity, and abnormal sexual development (Dodd 1997). Pharmaceutical estrogens in
sewage effluent have been shown to negatively affect fish development and reproductive activity
(Orlando et al. 1999).
Coal Mining and Processing
Coal mining and coal processing is a major source of water pollution in West Virginia, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, and Georgia. Contaminants from coal mining and processing operations
include sediments, metals, hydraulic fluids, frothing agents, modifying reagents, pH regulators,
dispersing agents, flocculants, and media separators (Ahlstedt et al. 2005). Coal mining and processing
degrades water quality and results in lasting impairments to aquatic biota (Carlisle et al. 2008, Pond et
al. 2008, Pomponio 2009, Wood 2009). Sediments, heavy metals, and other pollutants from mining are one
of the causal factors in mussel declines (Houp 1993, Neves et al. 1997, Locke et al. 2006). Ahlstedt et al.
(2005) report that the permitted and illegal discharge of coal fines is polluting some of the best
remaining mussel habitat in the Clinch River, which is a global hotspot for mussel diversity.
Coal mining and processing release heavy metals into the environment including aluminum, cadmium,
copper, iron, manganese, mercury, selenium, sulfate, and zinc, which act as metabolic poisons in
freshwater species (Earle and Callaghan 1998). Mussels exposed to high concentrations of metals in the
laboratory exhibited mortality, weight loss, altered enzyme activity and filtration rate, and behavioral
modifications (Naimo 1995). The effects of metals on mussel feeding, growth, and reproduction can
have significant consequences for mussel populations (Naimo 1995). Naimo (1995) concludes that the
widespread decline in species diversity and population density of U.S. freshwater mussels is partially
attributable to chronic, low-level exposure to toxic metals.
Selenium pollution from coal mining is causing deformities and reproductive failure in aquatic species
and leading to less diverse and more pollution-tolerant species assemblages (Lemly 2009, Pomponio
2009). Lemly (2009) states:
“Once in the aquatic environment, waterborne selenium can enter the food chain and reach levels
that are toxic to fish and wildlife. Impacts may be rapid and severe, eliminating entire
communities of fish and causing reproductive failure in aquatic birds.”
Effluent from a mountaintop removal mine in West Virginia was found to contain as much as 82 ug/L
selenium, which is over fifteen times the threshold for toxic bioaccumulation, and which caused elevated
levels of selenium in fish tissues in the Mud River with associated deformities and other toxic effects

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 38

 (Lemly 2009). Selenium and other pollutants from surface coal mining operations pose a persistent toxic
hazard for aquatic species (Palmer et al. 2010).
Pollution from abandoned mined lands is also a major threat for southeastern aquatic species. Sediments,
metals, acids, and other pollutants in mine drainage negatively impact aquatic species in a variety of
ways from acute toxicity to physical impacts from solid precipitates (Cherry et al. 2001, Soucek et al.
2003). Surface waters receiving mine discharge commonly have extremely low pH levels, below 3.0,
with toxic impacts extending several miles downstream (Soucek et al. 2003). Acid mine drainage has a
major negative influence on aquatic communities that are directly impacted by low-pH waters. Acid
mine runoff from abandoned mines has completely destroyed stream biotas in many areas (Folkerts
1997).
Coal Combustion
Pollutants from coal-fired power plants threaten aquatic species nationwide and in the southeast. Coal
combustion produces nitric and sulfuric acids, mercury, and coal ash, all of which negatively impact
aquatic species (Fleischer et al. 1993). Nitric and sulfuric acids released from coal-fired power plants
cause acidification of water bodies. Streams and lakes in Great Smoky Mountain National Park and
elsewhere have been degraded by acid precipitation (Morse et al. 1997). Acid precipitation and
deposition directly threaten aquatic organisms (Strayer 2006). Phytoplankton are negatively affected by
acidification, which has ramifications throughout the food web (Dodd 1997). Acid precipitation harms
caddisflies and stoneflies (Morse et al. 1997). Several of the petitioned insects are threatened by acid
deposition including the Smokies snowfly and Smokies needlefly. Acidity in aquatic habitats can cause
direct amphibian mortality, and plays a major role in limiting amphibian distribution (Dodd 1997).
Coal combustion also releases mercury into the environment. The U.S. Geological Survey examined
mercury in fish, sediment, and water drawn from 291 rivers and streams between 1998 and 2005 and
found detectable mercury contamination in every single fish sampled (Scudder et al. 2009). The study
found that 25 percent of fish are contaminated with mercury at levels above the safe standard for human
consumption (0.3 parts per million wet weight). Atmospheric deposition of mercury is responsible for
the contamination of most waterways. Wetlands, forests and organic soils can enhance the conversion of
mercury to highly toxic methylmercury which accumulates in the food web. The highest concentrations
among all sampled sites occurred in fish from blackwater coastal-plain streams draining forested land or
wetlands in Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, and North and South Carolina, and from basins in the West
with gold mines and/or mercury mines. Total mercury concentrations greater than 0.2 micrograms per
gram wet weight were detected in game fish in every southeastern state, with total concentrations greater
than 0.3 micrograms/gram being detected in Tennessee, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida. Mercury concentrations in fish at over 70 percent of the
sites exceeded the value that is of concern for the protection of fish-eating mammals. Negative
physiological effects of mercury on aquatic species have been demonstrated at low concentrations, with
elevated concentrations being detected at the top of the food web due to bioaccumulation (Scudder et al.
2009).
Coal combustion waste, or coal ash, poses an acute and chronic threat to aquatic species in areas where
wastes are stored. The combustion of coal produces over 129 million tons of solid waste annually
(Eilperin 2009). Coal ash contains concentrated levels of
chlorine, zinc, copper, arsenic, lead, selenium, mercury, and other toxic contaminants, and improper
storage of coal combustion waste has caused pollution of ground and surface waters (EPA 2007b). The
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 39

 EPA reports that there are at least 584 coal ash dumps across the country, including many in Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia (EPA 2009c). Indiana and Kentucky have the most coal ash ponds, 53 and
44 respectively. The New York Times reports that there are more than 1,300 coal ash dumps across the
country, most of which are unregulated and unmonitored (Dewan 2009). Many coal ash ponds were
constructed without the guidance of trained engineers and are aging and at high risk of leaking (EPA
2009c).
Coal combustion wastes threaten aquatic communities. Most coal ash storage sites are on waterways, so
that they can take in and release water (Dewan 2009). In some areas, entire fish populations have been
lost due to pollution from coal combustion wastes (Cherry 1999). Fish consumption advisories have
been issued for areas where waterbodies are contaminated with selenium from coal ash disposal sites
(Skorupa 1998). Hopkins et al. (1999) reported behavioral, developmental, and metabolic abnormalities
in amphibians and reptiles in wetlands that have been contaminated with coal combustion waste in
South Carolina. Aquatic communities downstream of coal combustion storage sites are at high risk from
accidental spills. In December 2008, a coal ash pond in Kingston, Tennessee ruptured and released over
a billion gallons of toxic-laden sludge into the Emory River (Dewan 2009b). Sampling of the spill has
shown heavy metal contamination in aquatic habitats, including arsenic, lead, thallium, cadmium,
chromium, barium, and nickel (Smith 2009). Another coal ash spill occurred in January 2009 near
Stevenson, Alabama.
In sum, southeastern aquatic species are threatened by acute and chronic pollution from a variety of
sources. Pollution can undermine efforts to protect species and can drive species to extinction (Neves et
al. 1997, FWS 1997).
Global Climate Change and Drought
As aquatic and riparian species, global climate change threatens all of the petitioned species. Climate
models project both continued warming in all seasons across the southeast, and an increase in the rate of
warming (Karl et al. 2009). The warming in air and water temperatures projected for the southeast will
create heat-related stress for fish and wildlife. Increasing water temperatures and declining dissolved
oxygen levels in stream, lakes, and shallow aquatic habitats will lead to fish kills and loss of aquatic
species diversity (Folkerts 1997, Karl et al. 2009). Climate change will alter the distribution of native
plants and animals and will lead to the local loss of imperiled species and the displacement of native
species by invasives (Karl et al. 2009). Concerning the effects climate change is expected to have on
southeastern environments, Karl et al. (2009) state, “Ecological thresholds are expected to be crossed
throughout the region, causing major disruptions to ecosystems and to the benefits they provide to
people.”
Climate change will increase the incidence and severity of both drought and major storm events in the
southeast (Karl et al. 2009). The percentage of the southeast region experiencing moderate to severe
drought has already increased over the past three decades. Since the mid- 1970s, the area of moderate to
severe spring and summer drought has increased by 12 percent and 14 percent, respectively. Fall
precipitation tended to increase in most of the southeast, but the extent of region-wide drought still
increased by 9 percent (Karl et al. 2009). For example, from 2007-2008, the Coosa River watershed in
Alabama and Georgia experienced severe drought, and streamflow in the Conasauga River was the
lowest recorded in nearly 70 years (U.S. Geological Survey 2007). The threat to aquatic ecosystems
posed by drought is magnified both by climate change and by human population growth. A drought in
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 40

 the southeast from 2005-2006 caused more than a billion dollars in lost crops and “placed massive strain
on the water supply system of the affected states, pitting state against state and user against user . . .”
(Seager et al. 2009). Decreased water availability coupled with human population growth will further
stress natural systems. Human response strategies to decreased water availability will likely include the
construction of more dams, which threatens wildlife species which are negatively affected by
impoundment, and increased groundwater pumping, which threatens spring and cave obligate species
(Karl et al. 2009). Drought, and increased evaporation and evapotranspiration due to warmer
temperatures will lead to decreased groundwater recharge and potential saltwater intrusion in shallow
aquifers in many parts of the southeast, further exacerbating threats to aquatic organisms (Karl et al.
2009).
Drought inexorably threatens aquatic species. Intense droughts and increasing temperatures resulting
from climate change will cause the drying of waterbodies and the local or global extinction of riparian
and aquatic species (Karl et al. 2009). Declines of mollusks as a direct result of drought have already
been documented (Golladay et al. 2004, Haag and Warren 2008). Populations of amphibians which are
dependent on consistent rainfall patterns for breeding, such as those that breed in temporary ponds,
could be extirpated by drought (Dodd 1997). Amphibian declines are already linked to climate change
globally (Pounds et al. 2006) and in the southeastern United States (Daszak et al. 2005).
The warming climate will likely cause ecological zones to shift upward in latitude and
altitude and species’ persistence will depend upon, among other factors, their ability to
disperse to suitable habitat (Peters and Darling 1985). Human modifications to waterways, such as
dams, and changes to the landscape including extensive development, will make species’ dispersal to
more suitable habitat difficult to impossible (Strayer 2006, Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997, FWS 2009).
Many species of freshwater invertebrates are likely to go extinct due to climate change (Strayer 2006).
Freshwater mussels and snails are capable of moving only short distances and are unlikely to be able to
adjust their ranges in response to climactic shifts (FWS 2009). For example, populations of wetland
species must be able to disperse if their habitat becomes unsuitable, but wetland habitats are increasingly
isolated and surrounded by a hostile landscape matrix (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997). Deteriorating
habitat conditions and obstacles to dispersal place all of the petitioned species at risk of extinction due to
global climate change.
Several of the coastal petitioned species are threatened by sea-level rise and increased storm intensity
resulting from global climate change including the Florida Keys mole skink, MacGillivray's seaside
sparrow, and Louisiana eyed silkmoth.
Invasive Species
Invasive species are a major threat to native aquatic plants and animals in the southeast, and are a known
threat for 96 of the petitioned species (24 percent). The spread of invasive species has been identified as
a primary factor in the imperilment of freshwater fauna and the loss of aquatic biodiversity (Allan and
Flecker 1993, Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1999). Invasive species negatively affect native species through
competition, predation, and disease introduction. In the southeast, the rate of invasion by exotic species
is increasing and placing native freshwater fauna at risk (Folkerts 1997).
Aquaculture is a leading vector of aquatic invasive species including fishes, invertebrates, and plants
(Naylor et al. 2001). Introduced Asian carp, which are used to control trematodes in catfish ponds, have
become established in rivers throughout the Mississippi Basin where they consume native mollusks and
compete for resources with native fishes (Naylor et al. 2001). There are at least 30 species of invasive
fish in the Tennessee and Cumberland river basins, including carp, alewife, rainbow and brown trouts,

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 41

 striped bass, yellow perch, and non-native forms of muskellunge and walleye (Etnier 1997). Nonnative
mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) have been widely introduced for vector control and now compete
with native species for resources (Buckner et al. 2002). Gamefish such as trout and bass have been
widely introduced and prey on native fish, invertebrates, and amphibians (Herrig and Shute 2002, Kats
and Ferrer 2003, Strayer 2006). Native fish fauna in southern Florida have been displaced by tropical
species (Folkerts 1997). Further, more than 60 indigenous southeastern fish species have been
introduced to drainages where they are not native (Warren Jr. et al. 1997).
Freshwater mollusks are threatened both by invasive fish and by invasive mollusks. The introduction of
nonnative fishes such as the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) has indirect negative affects on
native mussels due to negative impacts on their host fishes (NatureServe 2009). The invasion of
nonindigenous mollusks is one of the primary reasons for the decline of freshwater mussels (Williams et
al. 93). Invasive mussels can reach densities of thousands per square meter, outcompeting and literally
covering native species (Williams et al. 1993).
The infamous zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) uses both rivers and creeks and has been detected
in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia
(NatureServe 2009). Zebra mussels now infest most major Mississippi River tributaries, including the
Ohio, Tennessee, Cumberland, and Arkansas Rivers (NatureServe 2009). Zebra mussels are expected to
eventually spread to all the navigable rivers in the southeast as well to tributary reservoirs and smaller
streams (Jenkinson and Todd 1997). Zebra mussels, and other invasive mollusks, compete with native
mussels for food and space, attach to native mussels and weaken or kill them, and alter the suitability of
the substrate for native species (Herrig and Shute 2002). Where zebra mussels establish large
populations, they are likely to destroy native mussel and snail populations (Jenkinson and Todd 1997).
Williams et al. (1993) state that the spread of nonnative mollusks appears “poised to decimate many of
the remaining native mussel populations.” Concerning the risk posed to native mussels by the spread of
zebra mussels, Neves et al. (1997) state:
“It is almost inevitable that zebra mussel-infested waters will occur in nearly all southeastern
states, and that some level of effect will occur to native mollusks. The zebra mussel will
probably be the final nail in the coffin of several federally protected mussels that succumb to
infestations in large rivers. Other commercial and rare mussels may require endangered species
status if the zebra mussel infestations extirpate river and reservoir populations and drastically
reduce the ranges of one-time widespread big-river species. The urgency of protection and
conservation of native mussels cannot be overemphasized. Natural resource agencies in the
southeast must be proactive in efforts to prevent the wholesale extinction of mussels in the direct
path of the zebra mussel invasion” (p. 73).
Native southeastern mollusks are also threatened by the invasion of Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea).
Asian clams spread rapidly throughout every major drainage in the southern United States following
their introduction in the 1960’s. Asian clams threaten native mussels due to competition for space and
food. Neves et al. (1997) caution that juvenile native mussels “may become victims of stress from the
highly mobile and abundant young Asian clams” (p. 72).
In addition to fish and mollusks, other southeastern taxa are also known to be threatened by the spread
of invasive species. Native crayfishes are threatened by invasive mussels, which can attach to their
exoskeletons, and by invasive species of crayfishes and fishes which compete with and prey on native
crayfish species (Schuster 1997). Nonnative crayfishes are commonly introduced via “bait-buckets” and
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 42

 are contributing to the decline of native species (Taylor et al. 1996). Several species of nonnative snails
have also invaded the southeast (Neves et al. 1997). Native amphibians are threatened by invasive fish
and invasive amphibians which can act as predators, competitors, and disease vectors (Dodd 1997).
Additionally, exotic cattle egrets, armadillos, and wild hogs can “exact a substantial toll” on amphibian
populations (Dodd 1997). Fire ants also threaten amphibians, as they have been reported to kill
metamorphosing individuals (Freed and Neitman 1988).
Many invasive plant species are wreaking havoc on aquatic habitats in the southeast.
Species such as Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), alligatorweed (Alternanthera
philoxeroides), hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), and water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipies) are thriving
in aquatic and wetland habitats and negatively impacting native species (Folkerts 1997, Buckner et al.
2002). Invasive plants displace native plants, alter substrate availability for aquatic invertebrates, and
interfere with the food web (Folkerts 1997). Invasive plants threaten several of the petitioned plants
including Apalachicola wild indigo, Carolina bishopweed, and Harper’s heartleaf.
Outbreaks of both invasive and native forest-destroying insects have weakened and killed trees in
riparian areas and reduced nutrient inputs to aquatic systems (Morse et al. 2007). The petitioned
Carolina hemlock is threatened by hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae). Streamside habitat
degradation due to exotic pests also threatens aquatic insect populations in the Southeast due to altered
microhabitat conditions (Herrig and Shute 2002).
Invasive species currently pose a critical threat to native aquatic species in the southeast, and this threat
is expected to increase in the future as the climate warms and as habitat availability shrinks. Even taxa
which are not currently threatened by invasive species are expected to disappear due to future biological
invasions as species adjust their ranges and humans continue to accidentally and intentionally transport
nonnative species (Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1998).
Inherent Vulnerability of Small Isolated Populations
Two hundred and twenty-four of the petitioned species (55 percent) now exist primarily in small,
isolated populations which heightens their risk of extinction. Small, isolated populations are vulnerable
to extirpation due to limited gene flow, reduced genetic diversity, and inbreeding depression (Lynch
1996). Population isolation also increases the risk of extinction from stochastic genetic and
environmental events including drought, flooding, and toxic spills (FWS 2009). Habitat modification
and cumulative habitat degradation from non-point source pollution are also major threats for species
which exist in isolated populations. Due to blocked avenues of dispersal or limited dispersal ability,
isolated populations “gradually and quietly perish” as habitat conditions deteriorate (FWS 2000).
Synergies and Multiple Causes
The risk of extinction for the petitioned species is heightened by synergies between threats as most
species face multiple threats and these threats interact and magnify each other. For example, as habitat
availability shrinks, species become more vulnerable to threats from invasive species, pollution, climate
change, disease, and other factors. Across taxa, interactions among threats place southeastern aquatic
biota at increased risk of extinction. Reptiles are threatened by habitat loss and degradation, invasive
species, pollution, disease and parasitism, unsustainable use, global climate change, and synergies
between these factors (Gibbons et al. 2000). Freshwater snails are threatened by the combined effects of
habitat loss, pollution, drought, and invasive species (Lydeard et al. 2004). Likewise, amphibians are
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 43

 imperiled by multiple, interacting threats. Stress from the effects of increased UV-b radiation, pollution,
and climate change has made amphibians more vulnerable to the spread of disease (Gendron et al. 2003,
Pounds et al. 2006). The interaction between climate change and compromised immunity due to various
stressors threatens both amphibian populations and entire species (Green and Dodd 2007). Similarly,
threats to freshwater fish are “many, cumulative, and interactive” (Herrig and Shute 2002), and fish
extirpation is “nearly always attributable to multiple human impacts’ (Warren et al. 1997). Any factor
which causes the decline of the host-fishes on which mussels depend for reproduction also threatens the
mussels, which themselves face multiple threats including impoundment, pollution, and invasive species
(Neves et al. 1997). In addition to overarching threats, species are threatened by the combination of
“relatively minor but cumulative factors” (Shute et al. 1997). Because of the multifaceted ecological
relationships among species, the extirpation of a species can have effects that cascade throughout the
community. For example, the decline of bats due to disease, habitat loss, and pollution has cut off the
nutrient supply on which many other cave organisms depend, and the decline of mollusks has eliminated
a primary food source for freshwater turtles. Shute et al. (1997) state that there has been “a collapse of
the complex interactions between the diverse organisms that coevolved in southeastern riverine
ecosystems” (Shute et al. 1997, p. 446). The loss of a single species can imperil associated species,
highlighting the need to protect entire communities of species simultaneously.
CONCLUSION
The aquatic and riparian species of the Southeastern United States are of global biodiversity
significance. Unfortunately, these species face numerous and interactive threats including habitat loss,
pollution, climate change, disease, predation, overuse, and the spread of invasive species. Existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to prevent the extinction of the hundreds of unique Southeastern
species presented in this petition. They merit immediate Endangered Species Act protection to ensure
their survival and recovery.
REQUEST FOR CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION
We request and strongly recommend that all known locations for all petitioned species be designated as
critical habitat concurrent with species’ listing. Because the survival of the petitioned species is
dependent on healthy aquatic and riparian habitat, critical habitat designation should include terrestrial
areas within watersheds which are critical to maintaining integral aquatic environments and also water
rights to ensure continued surface flows in light of diminishing water resources.
As required by the Endangered Species Act, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat concurrent with
determination that a species is endangered or threatened (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3A)). Critical habitat is
defined by Section 3 of the ESA as:
(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species,
at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 1533 of this title, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may
require special management considerations or protection; and
(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in
accordance with the provisions of section 1533 of this title, upon a determination by the Secretary that
such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.16 U.S.C. §1532(5).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 44

 Acknowledgements
Noah Greenwald, Tierra Curry, Marty Bergoffen, Zoe Sheldon, and Kieran Suckling played a significant
role in the development of this petition. Curt Bradley and Jeff Boyd produced the maps. We wish to
thank the numerous scientists who provided invaluable information and expertise, and to thank Noel
Burkhead for the cover photograph.

For all Parties to the Petition:

David Noah Greenwald
Endangered Species Program Director
Center for Biological Diversity
PO Box 11374
Portland, OR 97211
ngreenwald@biologicaldiversity.org

Tierra Curry
Conservation Biologist
Center for Biological Diversity
PO Box 1178
Flagstaff, AZ 86002-1178
tcurry@biologicaldiversity.org

Literature Cited
Abell, R.A., D.M. Olson, E. Dinerstein et al. 2000. Freshwater ecoregions of North America: a
conservation assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. 319 p.
Ahlstedt, S.A., M.T. Fagg, R.S. Butler, and J.F. Connell. 2005. Long-term information for freshwater
mussel populations at twelve fixed-station monitoring sites in the Clinch and Powell Rivers of Eastern
Tennessee and Southwestern Virginia. Final report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service February
16, 2005.
Ahlstedt, S.A., and J.D. Tuberville. 1997. Quantitative reassessment of the freshwater mussel fauna in
the Clinch and Powell rivers, Tennessee and Virginia. p. 72–97. In: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo, eds. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II: Initiatives
for the Future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium. April 1997.
Ahlstedt, S.A. and S.R. Brown. 1979. The naiad fauna of the Powell River in Virginia and Tennessee.
Bulletin of the American Malacological Union 1979:40-43.
Ahmad, M.U. 1973. Strip mining and water pollution. Groundwater 11:37-41.
Aldridge, D.W., B.S. Payne, and A.C. Miller. 1987. The effects of intermittent exposure to suspended
solids and turbulence on three species of freshwater mussels. Environmental Pollution 45:17-20.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 45

 Allan J.D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35:257–284.
Allan, J. D., and A. S. Flecker. 1993. Biodiversity conservation in running waters. BioScience 43:32-43.
Allendorf, F.W. 1988. Conservation biology of fishes. Conservation Biology 2:145-148.
AmphibiaWeb. 2009. http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ Last accessed October 20, 2009.
Anderson, R.M. 1989. The effect of coal surface mining on endangered freshwater mussels (Mollusca:
Unionidae) in the Cumberland River drainage, M.S. Thesis, Tennessee Technological University,
Cookeville, TN.
Anthony, J.L. and J.A. Downing. 2001. Exploitation trajectory of a declining fauna: a century of
freshwater mussel fisheries in North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58:
2071-2090.
Austin, A.P., G.E. Harris, and W.P. Lucey. 1991. Impact of an organophosphate herbicide
(GlyphosateR) on periphyton communities developed in experimental streams. Bulletin of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 47:29-35.
Bailey, M. A., and C. Guyer. 2004. Black warrior waterdog. Pages 36-37 in R. E. Mirarchi, M. A.
Bailey, T. M. Haggarty, and T. L. Best, editors. Alabama wildlife. Volume 3. Imperiled amphibians,
reptiles, birds, and mammals. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Barrows, E.M. 1989. Flower number, plant size, and plant vigor in a Florida population of the globally
endangered pot-of-gold lily, Lilium iridollae. J. Washington Academy Science 79(3): 118-122.
Behler, J. L. 1997. Troubled times for turtles. Proceedings: conservation, restoration, and
management of tortoises and turtles— an international conference. Available online at
http://nytts.org/proceedings/proceed.htm Last accessed October 19, 2009.
Benke, A. C. 1990. A perspective on America's vanishing streams. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 91:77-88.
Bennett, M.G., B.R. Kuhajda, and J.H. Howell. 2008. Status of the imperiled Frecklebelly Madtom,
Noturus munitus (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae): A review of data from
field surveys, museum records, and the literature. Southeastern Naturalist 7(3):459-474.
Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective.
Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur,
GA. 553 pp.
Bogan, A.E. 1996. Decline and decimation: the extirpation of the Unionid bivalves of North America.
Journal of Shellfish Research 15:484.
Bogan, A.E. 1993. Freshwater bivalve extinctions (Mollusca: Unionoida): a search for causes. American
Zoology. 33: 599–609.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 46

 Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Pierson. 1993. Survey of the Aquatic Gastropods of the Coosa River Basin,
Alabama: 1992. Unpublished report submitted to the Alabama Natural Heritage Program, Montgomery,
AL, 20 p. + appendices.
Branson, B.A., D.L. Batch, and W.R. Curtis. 1984. Small-stream recovery following surface mining in
east-central Kentucky. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 45:55-72.
Branson, B.A. and D.L. Batch. 1972. Effects of strip mining on small-stream fishes in east-central
Kentucky. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 84:507-518.
Briggs, C. J., V. T. Vredenburg, R. A. Knapp, and L. J. Rachowicz. 2005. Investigating the populationlevel effects of chytridiomycosis: An emerging infectious disease of amphibians. Ecology 86:3149–
3159.
Brooks R.J., G.P. Brown, and D.A. Galbraith. 1991. Effects of a sudden increase in
natural mortality of adults on a population of the common snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina). Can. J. Zool. 69:1214-1320.
Browne, C.L. and S.J. Hecnar. 2007. Species loss and shifting population structure of freshwater turtles
despite habitat protection. Biological Conservation 138(3-4):421-429.
Buckner, M.M., W. Smith, J.A. Takats. 2002. Tennessee, Cumberland, and Mobile River Basins at Risk.
A Biological Assessment and Vision for the World Wildlife Fund’s Southeast Rivers and Streams
Project. Nashville, TN. 52 pp. Available online:
www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/sers/WWFBinaryitem2738.pdf
Last accessed July 29, 2009.
Buhlmann, K.A. and J.W. Gibbons. 1997. Imperiled aquatic reptiles of the Southeast. p. 201-231 In:
Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective.
Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur,
GA. 553 pp.
Burke, V.J. and J.W. Gibbons. 1995. Terrestrial buffer zones and wetland conservation: a case study of
freshwater turtles in Carolina bay. Conservation Biology 9:1365-1369.
Burr, B.M. and R.L. Mayden. 1992. Phylogenetics and North American freshwater fishes. In:
Systematics, Historical Ecology, and North American Freshwater Fishes. R.L. Mayden (ed.). Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA. p. 18-75.
Byrne, M.W., E.P. Davie, and J.W. Gibbons. 2008. Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Occurrence in
Eurycea cirrigera. Southeastern Naturalist 7(3):551-555.
Cabbage, F. W., J. O. Laughlin, and C. S. Bullock. 1993. Forest resource policy. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 47

 Camp, C.D., W.E. Peterman, J.R. Milanovich, T. Lamb, J.C. Maerz, and D.B. Wake. 2009. A new genus
and species of lungless salamander (family Plethodontidae) from the Appalachian highlands of the
south-eastern United States. Journal of Zoology 279: 86-94.
Carlander, H. B. 1954. Mussel fishing and the pearl button industry. Pages 40–51 in A history of fish
and fishing in the Upper Mississippi River. Upper Mississippi River
Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.
Carlisle, D.M., C.P. Hawkins, M.R. Meadori, M. Potapova, and J. Falcone. 2008. Biological
assessments of Appalachian streams based on predictive models for fish, macroinvertebrate, and diatom
assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27(1):16-37.
Carpenter, S.R., J.F. Kitchell, and J.R. Hodgson. 1985. Cascading trophic interactions and lake
productivity. BioScience 35:634-639.
Center for Biological Diversity. 2008. Exhibit E, Petition Appendices for ban of harvest of freshwater
turtles in the Southern United States. Available at:
http://biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/southern_and_midwestern_freshwater_turtles/index.html Last
accessed October 19, 2009.
Cerulean, S.I. 1991. The Preservation 2000 Report. Florida’s natural areas—what have we got to lose?
The Nature Conservancy, Winter Park, FL, 74 p.
Cherry D.S., R.J. Currie, D.J. Soucek, H.A. Latimer, and G.C. Trent. 2001. An
integrative assessment of a watershed impacted by abandoned mined land discharges. Environmental
Pollution 111:377–388.
Claassen, C. 1994. Washboards, pigtoes, and muckets: historic musseling in the Mississippi watershed.
Historical Archaeology 28:1–145.
Colborn, T. 2006. A case for revisiting the safety of pesticides: a closer look at neurodevelopment.
Environ Health Perspect 114(1):10–17. Review.
Colborn, T. 2004. Commentary: setting aside tradition when dealing with endocrine disruptors. ILAR J
45(4):394–400. Review.
Colborn, T., F.S. vom Sall, and A.M. Soto. 1993. Developmental effects of endocrine disrupting
chemicals in humans and wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives 101:378-384.
Congdon J.D., A.E. Dunham, R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual
maturity and demographics of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): Implications for conservation
and management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7: 826– 833.
Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1994. Demographics of common
snapping turtles: Implications for conservation and management of long-lived
organisms. American Zoologist 34:397-408.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 48

 Connolly, K.D., D.R. Williams, and S.M. Johnson. 2005. Wetlands Law and Policy: Understanding
Section 404. Chicago: Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, American Bar Association.
Cook, R.B., J.W. Elwood, R.R. Turner, M.A. Bogle, P.J. Mulholand, and A.V. Palumbo. 1994. Acidbase chemistry of high-elevation streams in the Great Smoky Mountains. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution
72:331-356.
Corser, J.D. 2000. Decline of disjunct green salamander (Aneides aeneus) populations in the southern
Appalachians. Biological Conservation 97(1):119-126.
Cubbage, F.W. and C.H. Flather. 1993. Forested wetland distribution: A detailed look at the south.
Journal of Forestry 91(5):35-40.
Cummer, M. R., D. E. Green, and E. M. O'Neill. 2005. Aquatic chytrid pathogen detected in terrestrial
plethodontid salamander. Herpetological Review 36:248–249.
Cunningham, A.A., P. Daszak, and J.P. Rodriguez. 2003. Pathogen Pollution: defining a parasitological
threat to biodiversity conservation. Journal of Parasitology 89(suppl): S78-S83.
Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States: 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. 21 p.
Dahl, T.E. and C.E. Johnson. 1991. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the
Conterminous United States, Mid-1970’s toMid-1980’s. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 28 pages.
Daszak, P., L. Berger, A. A. Cunningham, A. D. Hyatt, D. E. Green, and R. Speare. 1999. Emerging
infectious diseases and amphibian population declines. Emerging Infectious Diseases 5:735–748.
Daszak, P., D.E. Scott, A.M. Kilpatrick, C. Faggioni, J.W. Gibbons, and D. Porter. 2005. Amphibian
population declines at Savannah River Site are linked to climate, not
chytridiomycosis. Ecology 86:3232-3237.
Davidson, E. W., M. Parris, J. P. Collins, J. E. Longcore, A. P. Pessier, and J. Brunner. 2003.
Pathogenicity and transmission of chytridiomycosis in Tiger Salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum).
Copeia 2003:601–607.
Davis, A.K., M.J. Yabsley, M.K. Keel, and J.C. Maerz. 2007. Discovery of a novel alveolate pathogen
affecting southern leopard frogs in Georgia: description of the disease and host effects. EcoHealth
4(3):310-317.
de Solla, S.R. and K.J. Fernie. 2004. Characterization of contaminants in snapping turtles (Chelydra
serpentina) from Canadian Lake Erie Areas of Concern: St. Clair River, Detroit River, and Wheatley
Harbour. Environmental Pollution 132:101-112.
Delis, P. 1993. Effects of urbanization on the community of anurans of a pine flatwood habitat in west
central Florida. M.S. Thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 49

 Dewan, S. 2009. Clash in Alabama over Tennessee coal ash. New York Times August 29, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30ash.html?scp=1&sq=coal%20ash&st=cse
Dewan, S. 2009b Hundreds of coal ash dumps lack regulation. New York Times. January 6, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/07sludge.html
Diamond, J.M., D.W. Bressler, and V.B. Serveiss. 2002. Assessing relationships between human land
uses and the decline of native mussels, fish, and macroinvertebrates in the Clinch and Powell River
Watershed, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21(6): 1147-1155.
Dickson, J.G. 1997. Birds of the Southeastern United States: A Historical Perspective. p. 233-243 In:
Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective.
Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur,
GA. 553 pp.
Dickson, J.G. and M.L. Warren, Jr. 1994. Wildlife and fish communities of eastern riparian forests. In
Functions, Values, and Management: Proceedings of Riparian Ecosystems in the Humid U.S. National
Association of Conservation Districts, Washington, D.C., p. 1-31.
Diemer Berish, J.E., L.D. Wendland, and C.A. Gates. 2000. Distribution and Prevalence of Upper
Respiratory Tract Disease in Gopher Tortoises in Florida. Journal of Herpetology 34(1):5-12.
Dodd, C.K. Jr. 1997. Imperiled Amphibians: A Historical Perspective. p. 165-200 In: Benz, G.W. and
D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Southeast Aquatic
Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1990. Effects of habitat fragmentation on a stream-dwelling species, the flattened musk
turtle Sternotherus depressus. Biological Conservation 54: 33-45.
Dodd, C.K. Jr. 1988. Disease and population declines in the flattened musk turtle Sternotherus
depressus. American Midland Naturalist 119(2): 394-401.
Dodd, C. K., K. M. Enge, and J. N. Stuart. 1986. The effects of mining siltation on the distribution and
abundance of the flattened musk turtle, Sternotherus depressus, in northern Alabama. Denver Wildlife
Research Center, Gainevsille, Florida. 82 pp.
Duda, A.M. and D.L. Penrose. 1980. Impacts of mining activities on water quality in western North
Carolina. Water Resources Bulletin 16:1034-1040.
Dynesius, M., and C. Nilsson. 1994. Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern
third of the world. Science 266:753-762.
Earle, J. and T. Callaghan. 1998. Impacts of Mine Drainage on Aquatic Life, Water Uses, and ManMade Structures. p. 4-1 – 4-10. In: Brady, B.C., T. Kania, W.M. Smith, and R.J. Hornberger, eds. Coal
Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection. 1998. 398 pp. http://www.ott.wrcc.osmre.gov/library/pub/cmdpppp.htm

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 50

 Eilperin, J. 2009. Disposal of coal ash rises as environmental issue. Washington Post January 16, 2009.
Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011503987.html . Last accessed November 10, 2009.
Ersnt, C.H. and R.W. Barbour. 1989. Turtles of the World. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D.C.
Etnier, D.A. 1997. Jeopardized southeastern freshwater fishes. p. 87-104 In: Benz, G.W. and D.E.
Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Southeast Aquatic
Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, TN.
Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1991. An analysis of Tennessee’s jeopardized fish taxa. Journal of the
Tennessee Academy of Science 66:129-133.
Evens, J., and G. W. Page. 1986. Predation on black rails during high tides in salt marshes. Condor
88:107-109.
Finlay-Moore O, Hartel PG, Cabrera ML. 2000. 17β-Estradiol and testosterone in soil and runoff from
grasslands amended with broiler litter. J Environ Qual 29:1604–1611.
Fleischer, S., G. Andersson, and Y. Brodin. 1993. Acid water research in Sweden- knowledge for
tomorrow? Ambio 22: 258-263.
Folkerts, G.W. 1997. State and fate of the world’s aquatic fauna. p. 1-16 In: Benz, G.W. and D.E.
Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Southeast Aquatic
Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Ford, R.P., R.J. Cooper, D.L. Helmers, J.E. Cely, R.M. Hatcher, D.H. Orr, and M.S. Woodrey. 1997.
Bird resource management in the Southeast. p. 339-356 In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997.
Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special
Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Freed, P.S. and K. Neitman. 1988. Notes on predation on the endangered Houston Toad, Bufo
houstonensis. Texas Journal of Science 40:454-456.
Frest, T.J. 2002. Native snails: Indicators of Ecosystem Health. p. 211-215, in: Welfare
Ranching, G. Wuerthner and M. Matteson (Eds.). Island Press, Sausalito, California.
Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1995. Interior Columbia Basin Mollusk Species of Special
Concern. Final Report prepared for Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project Contract #
43-OE00-4-9112. January 15, 1995. Deixis Consultants, Seattle, WA. 274 pp.
Frest, T.J., and E.J. Johannes. 1993. Mollusc species of special concern within the range of the Northern
Spotted Owl with an addendum addressing new management options proposed in June 1993. Final

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 51

 report to Forest Ecosystem Management Working Group, USDA Forest Service. Deixis Consultants,
2517 NE 65th St, Seattle, WA 98115. 98 p.
Garber, S.D. and J. Burger. 1995. A 20-yr study documenting the relationship between
turtle decline and human recreation. Ecological Applications 5: 1151-1162.
Gendron, A. D., D. J. Marcogliese, S. Barbeau, M. S. Christin, P. Brousseau, S. Ruby, D. Cyr, and M.
Fournier. 2003. Exposure of leopard frogs to a pesticide mixture affects life history characteristics of the
lungworm Rhabdias ranae. Oecologia 135:469-476.
George, G.A. pers. comm. 2007. Cited in Emergency Rulemaking Request to Repeal Florida’s Turtle
Collection Law, Before The Florida Freshwater Fish And Wildlife Conservation Commission, Governor
Of Florida, and The Florida Department
of Health. March 27, 2008. Last accessed October 19, 2009. Available at:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/southern_and_midwestern_freshwater_turtles/index.html
Gibbons, J.W., D.E. Scott, T.J. Ryan, K.A. Buhlmann, T.D Tuberville, B.S. Metts, J.L. Greene, T. Mills,
Y. Leiden, S. Poppy, and C.T. Winne. 2000. The Global Decline
of Reptiles, Déjà Vu Amphibians. BioScience 50(8):653-666.
Gilbert, C.R. (ed.). 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Gilliom R.J. et al. 2006. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters: Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and
Ground Water, 1992–2001. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1291.
Gilpin Group Environmental Consulting and Planning. 2007. Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Smith Station CT Units 9 and 10 and the Smith-West Garrard Electric Transmission Project.
June 2007. Provided to The Center for Biological Diversity in response to a Freedom of Information Act
Request to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Glasgow H. B. and J.M. Burkholder, J. M. 2000. Water quality trends and management implications
from a five-year study of a eutrophic estuary. Ecological Applications 10: 1024–1046.
Gleick, P. H. 2003. Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for the 21st century. Science
302:1524–1528.
Golladay, S.W., P. Gagnon, M. Kearns, J.M. Battle, and D.W. Hicks. 2004. Response of freshwater
mussel assemblages (Bivalvia: Unionidae) to a record drought in the Gulf Coastal Plain of
southewestern Georgia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23(3): 494-506.
Green, D.E. and C.K. Dodd, Jr. 2007. Presence of amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis and other amphibian pathogens at warmwater
fish hatcheries in southeastern north America. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 2(1): 43-47.
Guillette, L.J. Jr., T.S. Gross, G.R. Masson, J.M. Matter, H.F. Percival, and A.R. Woodward. 1994.
Developmental abnormalities of the gonad and abnormal sex hormone concentrations in juvenile

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 52

 alligators from contaminated and control lakes in Florida. Environmental Health Perspectives 102:680688.
Guillette, L.J. Jr., D.A. Crain, A.A. Rooney, and D.B. Pickford. 1995. Organization versus activation:
the role of endocrine-disrupting contaminants during embryonic development in wildlife. Environmental
Health Perspectives 103 (Supplement 7): 157-164.
Haag, W.R. and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Effects of severe drought on freshwater mussel assemblages.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 1165-1178
Hall, R. O., M. C. Vanderloop, and M. F. Dybdahl. 2003. Exotic snails dominate nitrogen and carbon
cycling in a highly productive stream. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 1:407–411.
Hanlon, S.D. and J.F. Levine. 2004. Notes on the life history and demographics of the Savannah lilliput
(Toxolasma pullus) (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in University Lake, NC. Southeastern Naturalist, 3(2): 289296.
Hartfield, P. 1993. Status River of Aquatic Snails in the Coosa River, Alabama. Unpublished report,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS, 17 p.
Hartfield, P. 1993b. Headcuts and their effects on freshwater mussels. In Conservation and Management
of Freshwater Mussels. K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L. M. Koch (eds.). Proceedings of a
UMRCC Symposium, St. Louis, MO. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island,
IL, p. 131-141. Cited in Neves et al. 1997.
Hartfield, P. 1990. Status survey for mussels in the tributaries of the Black Warrior River, Alabama.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 8 pp.
Harvey, M.J. and J.D. Clark. 1997. Imperiled mammalian fauna of aquatic ecosystems in the Southeast:
a historical perspective. p. 245-258 In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in
Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz
Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Hay-Chmielewski, E. M., and G. Whelan, editors. 1997. Lake sturgeon rehabilitation strategy.
Management report of the lake sturgeon committee, Fisheries Division, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Ann Arbor.
Hayes T.B. et al. 2002. Atrazine-induced hermaphroditism at 0.1 ppb in American leopard frogs (Rana
pipiens): laboratory and field evidence. Environ Health Perspect 111:568–575.
Hefner, J.M. and J.P. Brown. 1984. Wetland trends in southeastern U.S. Wetlands 4:1-11.
Heppell, S. S. 1998. Application of life history theory and population model analysis to
turtle conservation. Copeia 1998: 367–375.
Herrig, J. and P. Shute. 2002. Chapter 23: aquatic animals and their habitats. Southern Region, USDA
Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority. 45 pp. In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G., eds. 2002.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 53

 Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 pp. Available at:
www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_23e.pdf . Last accessed June 8, 2009.
Holdich, D.M. 1993. A review of astaciculture : freshwater crayfish farming. Aquat. Living. Resour.
6(4): 307-317.
Holland, C.C., J. Honea, S.E. Gwin, and M.E. Kentula. 1995. Wetland degradation and loss in the
rapidly urbanizing area of Portland, Oregon. Wetlands 15(4): 1995.
Hopkins, J.S. et al. 1995. Environmental impacts of shrimp farming with special reference to the
situation in the continental United States. 18(1):25-42.
Hopey, D. 2009. Pa. points to mine discharge for Dunkard Creek fish kill.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. October 13, 2009. Available at: http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09286/1005162-100.stm
Hopkins, W.A., C.L. Rowe, J.H. Roe, D.E.Scott, M.T. Mendonza and J.D. Congdon. 1999.
Ecotoxicological impact of coal combustion byproducts on amphibians and reptiles. Savannah River
Ecology Laboratory, presented at the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 20th
Annual meeting, Philadelphia, PA, November 14-18. Abstract # PMP009.
Houp, R.E. 1993. Observations on long-term effects of sedimentation on freshwater mussels
(Mollusca:Unionidae) in the North Fork of the Red River, Kentucky. Transactions of the Kentucky
Academy of Science 54:93-97.
Hutson, S. et al. 2004. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000, Circular
1268, U.S. Geological Survey.
Hutson, S. S., N. L. Barber, J. F. Kenny, K. S. Linsey, D. S. Lumia, And M. A. Maupin. 2005. Estimated
use of water in the United States in 2000. U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1268. US Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
Jackson, D.C., N.J. Brown-Peterson, and T.D. Rhine. 1993. Perspectives for rivers and their fishery
resources in the upper Yazoo River basin, Mississippi. National Biological Survey, Biological Report
19:255-265.
Jackson, R. B., S. R. Carpenter, C.N. Dahm, D. M. Mcknight, R. J. Naiman, S. L. Postel, and S. W.
Running. 2001.Water in a changing world. Ecological Applications 11:1027–
1045.
Jacobson, E.R., C.H. Gardiner, S.L. Barten, D. H. Burr, and A. L. Bourgeois. 1989. Flavobacterium
meningosepticum infection of a Barbour's Map Turtle (Graptemys barbouri). Journal of Zoo and
Wildlife Medicine 20(4): 474-477.
Jenkinson, J.J. and R.M. Todd 1997. Management of Native Mollusk Resources. p. 283-305 In: Benz,
G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Southeast
Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 553
pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 54

 Johnson, P.T. and D.R. Sutherland. 2003. Amphibian deformities and Ribeiroia infection: an emerging
helminthiasis. Trends in Parasitology 19(8):332-335.
Johnson, T. 2009. Pesticide kills Lamoille River mudpuppies. Burlington Free Press October 9, 2009.
Last accessed November 6, 2009. Available at:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20091009/NEWS02/910090308
Judy, R. D., P. N. Seeley, T. M. Murray, S. C. Svirsky, M. R. Whitworth, and L. S. Ischinger. 1982.
National fisheries survey. Vol. I. Technical Report: Initial Findings. FWS/OBS-84/06. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United
States. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press. Available online at:
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/regional-climatechange-impacts/southeast . Last accessed July 13, 2009.
Kats, L.B. and R.P. Ferrer. 2003. Alien predators and amphibian declines: review of two decades of
science and the transition to conservation. Diversity and Distributions 9(2): 99-110.
Kautsky et al. 2000. Ecosystem perspectives on management of disease
in shrimp pond farming. Aquaculture 191:145–161.
Kerans, B. L., M. F. Dybdahl, M. M. Gangloff, and J. E. Jannot. 2005. Potamopyrgus antipodarum:
distribution, density, and effects on native macroinvertebrate assemblages
in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24:123–
138.
Kiesecker, J.M., L.K. Belden, K. Shea, and M.J. Rubbo. 2004. Amphibian decline and emerging disease.
Scientific American 92:138-147.
Kolpin D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber
et al. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams,
1999–2000: a national reconnaissance. Environ Sci Technol 36:1202–1211.
LaClaire, L.V. 1997. Amphibians in Peril: Resource Management in the Southeast. p. 307-321 In: Benz,
G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Southeast
Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 553
pp.
Layzer, J. B., M. E. Gordon, and R. M. Anderson. 1993. Mussels: the forgotten fauna of regulated
rivers. A case study of the Caney Fork River. Regul. Rivers Res. & Manage. 8:63-71.
Lemly, A.D. 2009. Aquatic Hazard of Selenium Pollution From Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining.
Report for The Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment. April 2009. 17 pp. Available
at: wvgazette.com/static/lemley2009.pdf
Last accessed August 31, 2009.
Lemly, A.D. 1985. Toxicology of selenium in a freshwater reservoir: Implications for
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 55

 environmental hazard evaluation and safety. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 10:
314-338.
Levy, F. 2009. America’s most toxic cities. Forbes November 5, 2009. Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/02/toxic-cities-pollution-lifestyle-real-estate-toxic-cities.html
Locke, B.A., D.S. Cherry, C.E. Zipper, and R.J. Currie. 2006. Land use influences and ecotoxicological
ratings for Upper Clinch River tributaries in Virginia. Archives of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 51:197-205.
Loveland, T., et al. 2003. Land-use/land cover change. In: Strategic Plan for the Climate Change
Science Program Final Report Mahoney, J.R., ed. pp. 63– 70, U.S. Clim. Change Program, Washington,
D. C.
Lydeard, C. and R.L. Mayden. 1995. A diverse and endangered aquatic ecosystem of the southeast
United States. Conservation Biology 9:800-805.
Lydeard, C., R. H. Cowie, W. F. Ponder, A. E. Bogan, P. Bouchet, S. A. Clark, K. S. Cummins, T. J.
Frest, O. Gargominy, D. G. Herbert, R. Hershler, K. E. Perez, B.
Roth, M. Seddon, E. E. Strong, and F. G. Thompson. 2004. The global decline of nonmarine mollusks.
BioScience 54:321–330.
Lynch, M. 1996. A quantitative-genetic perspective on conservation issues. In: Avise, J.C. and J.L.
Hambrick (eds.). Conservation genetics: case histories from nature. Chapman and Hall, New York. pp.
493-494.
Lysne, S.J., K.E. Perez, K.M. Brown, R.L. Minton, and J.D. Sides. 2008. A review of freshwater
gastropod conservation: challenges and opportunities. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society 27(2):463-470.
Mallin, M.A. and L.B. Cahoon. 2003. Industrialized animal production—a major
source of nutrient and microbial pollution to aquatic ecosystems. Population and Environment
24(5):369-385.
Marzluff, J.M., R. Bowman, and R. Donnelly. 2001. A historical perspective on
urban bird research: Trends, topics, and definitions. Pages 1-18 in J.M.
Marzluff, R. Bowman, and R. Donnelly, editors. Avian ecology and
conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell.
Master, L. 1991. Aquatic animals: Endangerment alert. Nature Conservancy 41:26-27.
Master, L. 1990. The imperiled status of North American aquatic animals. Biodiversity Network News
3(3):5-8.
Matter, W.J. and J.J. Ney. 1981. The impact of surface mine reclamation on headwater streams in
southwest Virginia. Hydrobiologia 28:63-71.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 56

 McCann, M.T. and R.J. Neves. 1992. Toxicity of coal-related contaminants to early life stages of
freshwater mussels in the Powell River, Virginia. Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,
Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences. Research Work Order No. 23 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Asheville Field Office. August 1992.
McKenzie, P.M., S.G. Smith, and M. Smith. 2007. Status of Schoenoplectus hallii (Hall's bulrush)
(Cyperaceae) in the United States. J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 1(1): 457-481.
McLaughlin, J.F., J.J. Hellmann, C.L. Boggs, and P.R. Ehrlich. 2002. Climate change hastens
population extinctions. PNAS 99(9): 6070-6074.
Means, D.B. 2009. Effects of rattlesnake roundups on the eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus
adamanteus). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 4(2):132-141.
Meek, S. E., and H.W. Clark. 1912. The mussels of the Big Buffalo Fork of White River, Arkansas.
Report and Special Papers of the U.S. Fish Commission. [Issued separately as U.S. Bureau of Fisheries
Document 759], 1911: 1-20.
Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neill, J. M. Pierson, and R. D. Suttkus. 1989. Fishes of the Black Warrior River
system in Alabama. Geological Survey of Alabama Bulletin 133. 201 pp.
Meyers Schöne L, and B.T. Walton. 1994. Turtles as monitors of chemical contaminants in the
environment. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 135: 93-153.
Miller, R.R., J.D. Williams, and J.E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during the
past century. Fisheries 14(6):22-38.
Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F.S. Mettee, and P. E. O’Neil (editors). 2004. Alabama Wildlife volume
2: Imperiled Aquatic Mollusks and Fishes. Tuscaloosa: Univ. of Alabama Press. 255 pp.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Mockenhaupt, B. 1999. Turtles can’t hide from hungry humans. Cambodian Daily, 7 Dec
1999: 1–2.
Morgan, R.P. and S.F. Cushman. 2005. Urbanization effects on stream fish assemblages in Maryland,
USA J. North Amer Benthological Soc 24: 643-655.
Morse, J.C., B.P. Stark, W. P. McCafferty, and K.J. Tennessen. 1997. Southern Appalachian and other
Southeastern streams at risk: Implications for mayflies, dragonflies and damselflies, stoneflies, and
caddisflies. p. 17-42 In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The
Southeastern Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and
Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Moyle, P.B. and R.A. Leidy. 1992. Loss of biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems: Evidence from fish
faunas. In Conservation Biology, P.L. Fiedler, and S.K. Jain (eds.). Chapman and Hall, New York, NY,
p. 127-169.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 57

 Mulholland, P.J. and D.R. Lenat. 1992. Streams of the southeastern piedmont, Atlantic drainage. In:
Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Aquatic Communities. C.T. Hackney, S.M. Adams, and
W.H. Martin (eds.). John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, p. 193-231.
Naimo TJ. 1995. A review of the effects of heavy metals on freshwater mussels. Ecotoxicology 4:341362.
Naylor, R.L., S.L. Williams, and D.R. Strong. 2001. Aquaculture: a gateway for exotic species. Science
294(5547):1655-1656.
Neel, J.K. and W.R. Allen. 1964. The mussel fauna of the upper Cumberland Basin before its
impoundment. Malacologia 1:427-459.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state-of-the-unionids address. In: Conservation and Management of Freshwater
Mussels. K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (eds.). Proceedings of a UMRCC
Symposium, St. Louis, MO. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, IL, p. 1-10.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of aquatic mollusks
in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. p. 43-85 In: Benz, G.W. and D.E.
Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Southeast Aquatic
Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Available online: http://www.sherpaguides.com/southeast/aquatic_fauna/chapter_3/
Last accessed August 4, 2009.
Neves, R. J. and M. C. Odom. 1989. Muskrat predation on endangered freshwater mussels in Virginia.
Journal of Wildlife Management 53:934–941.
Neves, R.J., G.B. Pardue, E.E. Benfield, and S.D. Dennis. 1980. An evaluation of endangered mollusks
in Virginia. Project E-F-1, Final Report, Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond,
VA, 140 p.
Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A
Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological
Service, Biological Report 28, Washington, D.C. 1995: 58 pp. http://biology.usgs.gov/pubs/ecosys.htm
Ohlendorf, H.M. 1989. Bioaccumulation and effects of selenium in wildlife. Soil Science
Society of America Special Publication 23: 133-177.
O’Neill, C.R., Jr. and D.B. MacNeill. 1989. Dreissena polymorpha an unwelcome new Great Lakes
invader. Sea Grant Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 11 p.
ORNHIC Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center. 2004. Survey and Manage species assessment.
http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic/survey_manage.html
Orlando, E.F., A.S. Kolok, G.A. Binzcik, J.L. Gates, M.K. Horton, C.S. Lambright, L.E. Gray, A.M.
Soto, and L.J. Guillette. 2004. Endocrine-Disrupting Effects of Cattle Feedlot Effluent on an Aquatic
Sentinel Species, the Fathead Minnow. Environmental Health Perspectives 112(3): 353-358.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 58

 Ortmann, A.E. 1924. The naiad fauna of Duck River in Tennessee. American Midland Naturalist 9:1862.
Padgett-Flohr, G. E. and J. E. Longcore. 2007. Taricha torosa. Fungal infection. Herpetological Review
38:176–177.
Page, L.M. and D.L. Swofford. 1984. Morphological correlates of ecological specialization in darters.
Environmental Biology of Fishes 11: 139-159.
Pajak, P., R.E. Wehnes, L. Gates, G. Siegwarth, J. Lyons, J.M. Pitlo, R.S. Holland, D.P. Rosebloom, and
L. Zuckerman. 1994. Agricultural land use and reauthorization of the 1990 Farm Bill. Fisheries
19(12):22-27.
Palmer, M.A. and E.S. Bernhardt. 2009. Mountaintop Mining Valley Fills and Aquatic Ecosystems: A
Scientific Primer on Impacts and Mitigation Approaches. Available at:
wvgazette.com/static/mtrwhitepaper.pdf Last accessed August 31, 2009.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S. Hendryx,
A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock. 2010. Mountaintop
mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Parmalee, P.W. 1967. The freshwater mussels of Illinois. Illinois State Museum, Popular Science Series,
8: 1-108.
Patrick, R. 1992. Surface Water Quality: Have the Laws Been Successful? Princeton University Press,
Princeton, N.J.
Peters, R.L. and J.D.S. Darling. 1985. The greenhouse effect and nature reserves. Bioscience
35(11):707-717.
Peterson E.W., R.K. Davis, and H.A. Orndorff. 2000. 17β-Estradiol as an indicator of animal waste
contamination in mantled karst aquifers. J Environ Qual 29:826–834.
Peterson, J. D., M. B. Wood, W. A. Hopkins, J. M. Unrine, and M. T. Mendonca. 2007. Prevalence of
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in American Bullfrog and Southern Leopard Frog larvae from wetlands
on the Savannah River Site, South Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 43:450–460.
Petranka, J.W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada.
Washington; London: Smithsonian Institution Press. 587 p.
Petranka, J. W. 1984. Incubation, larval growth, and embryonic and larval survivorship of smallmouth
salamanders (AMBYSTOMA TEXANUM) in streams. Copeia 1984:862-868.
Petranka, J. W. 1983. Fish predation; a factor affecting the spatial distribution of a stream-breeding
salamander. Copeia 1983:624-628.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 59

 Pomponio, J.R. 2009. Testimony of John “Randy” Pomponio, Director, Environmental Assessment and
Innovation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mid-Atlantic Region, before the
Committee On Environment And Public Works
Subcommittee on Water And Wildlife, U.S. Senate. June 25, 2009.
Pond, G.J., M.E. Passmore, F.A. Borsuk, L. Reynolds, and C. J. Rose. 2008. Downstream effects of
mountaintop coal mining: comparing biological conditions
using family- and genus-level macroinvertebrate bioassessment tools. Journal of North
American Benthological Society. 27(3):717-737.
Post, W., and J. S. Greenlaw. 1994. Seaside Sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus). In the Birds of North
America, No. 127 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences;
Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.
Postel, S.L. 2000. Entering an era of water scarcity: the challenges ahead. Ecological Applications
10:941–948.
Pough F.H., R.M. Andrews, J.E. Cadle, M.L. Crump, A.H. Savitzky, K.D. Wells. 1998.
Herpetology. New Jersey: Prentice - Hall.
Pounds, J.A., M.R. Bustamante, L.A. Coloma, J.A. Consuegra, M.P.L. Fogden, P.N. Foster, E. La
Marca, K.L. Masters, A. Merino-Viteri, R. Puschendorff, S.R. Ron, G.A. Sánchez-Azofeifa, C.J. Still,
and B.E. Young. 2006. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global
warming. Nature 439:161-167.
Power, M.E. 1990. Effects of fish in river food webs. Science 250:811-814.
Pyne, M., and D. Durham. 1993. Estimation of losses of ecosystems in Tennessee. Unpublished table.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Ecological Services Division, Nashville.
Cited in Noss et al. 1995.
Redmond, A., pers. comm. 2000. Cited in Emergency Rulemaking Request to Repeal Florida’s Turtle
Collection Law, Before The Florida Freshwater Fish And Wildlife Conservation Commission, Governor
Of Florida, And The Florida Department
of Health. March 27, 2008. Available at:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/southern_and_midwestern_freshwater_turtles/index.html
Last accessed October 19, 2009.
Reed, R.N., J. Congdon and J.W. Gibbons. 2002. The alligator snapping turtle
[Macroclemys (Macrochelys) temminckii]: A review of ecology, life history, and
conservation, with demographic analyses of the sustainability of take from wild
populations. Report to: Division of Scientific Authority, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Reice, S.R. and M. Wohlenberg. 1993. Monitoring freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates and benthic
processes: Measures for assessment of ecosystem health. In Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. D.M. Rosenberg and V.H. Resh (eds.). Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, p. 287305.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 60

 Ricciardi, A. 1998. Global range expansion of the Asian mussel Limnoperna fortunei: another fouling
threat to freshwater systems. Biofouling 13:97-106.
Ricciardi, A. and J.B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna.
Conservation Biology 13(5):1220-1222.
Ricciardi, A. and J.B. Rasmussen. 1998. Predicting the identity and impact of future biological invaders:
a priority for aquatic resource management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
55:1759-1765.
Richards, D. C. 2004. Competition between the threatened Bliss Rapids snail, Taylorconcha serpenticola
(Hershler et al.) and the invasive, aquatic snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum (Gray). PhD Dissertation,
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.
Richter, B.D., D.P. Braum, M.A. Mendelson et al. 1997. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna.
Conservation Biology. 11: 1081–1093.
Rogers, D.C. 2002. A morphological re-evaluation of the anostracan families Linderiellidae and
Polyartemiidae, with a redescription of the linderiellid Dexteria floridana (Dexter 1956) (Crustacea:
Branchiopoda). Hydrobiologia, 486: 57-61.
Rohr, J.R., A.M. Schotthoefer, T.R. Raffel, et al. 2008. Agrochemicals increase trematode infections in a
declining amphibian species. Nature 455(30):1235-1240.
Salzberg, A. 1995. Report on import/export turtle trade in the United States. Pages 314–
322 in Proceedings of the International Congress of Chelonian Conservation.
Gonfaron, France.
Schindler, D.W. 1989. Biotic impoverishment at home and abroad. BioScience 39:426.
Schuster, G.A. 1997. Crustacean Resource Management in the Southeast. p. 269-282 In: Benz, G.W.
and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Southeast
Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 553
pp.
Scudder, B.C. et al. 2009. Mercury in Fish, Bed Sediment, and Water from Streams Across the United
States, 1998–2005. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5109.
Seager, R., A. Tzanova, and J. Nakamura. 2009. Drought in the Southeastern United States: causes,
variability over the last millennium, and the potential for future hydroclimate change. Journal of Climate
22: 5021-5045.
Semlitsch, R.D. and J.R. Bodie. 1998. Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conservation Biology
12(5):1129-1133.
Sharma, D.S.K. 1999. Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Trade and Utilisation in Peninsular
Malaysia. A TRAFFIC Southeast Asia Report. Petaling Jaya, Selangor (Malaysia).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 61

 Shepard, W.D. 1993. Desert springs—both rare and endangered. Aquatic Conservation:
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 3:351-359.
Shute, P.W., R.G. Biggins, and R.S. Butler. 1997. Management and Conservation of Rare Aquatic
Resources: A Historical Perspective and Recommendations for Incorporating Ecosystem Management.
p. 445-466 In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern
Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and
Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Sickel, J. B. 1989. Impacts of brailing on mussel communities and habitat in Kentucky Lake. Ky. Dep.
Fish. Wildl. Resour., Frankfort Project No. 2-IJ- 19-2.
Skorupa, J.P. 1998. Selenium poisoning of fish and wildlife in nature: Lessons from twelve real-world
examples, from Environmental Chemistry of Selenium. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York.
Sloan, K.N. and J.E. Lovich. 1995. Exploitation of the alligator snapping turtle, Macroclemys
temminckii, in Louisiana: A case study. Chelonian Conservation Biology 1:221-222.
Smith, K.L., W.F. Pell, J.H. Rettig, R.H. Davis, and H.W. Robison. 1984. Arkansas’s Natural Heritage.
August House Publishers, Little Rock, AR.
Smith, S.A. 2009. Testimony submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works. January 8, 2009.
Snyder, N. and H. Snyder. 1969. A comparative study of mollusk predation by Limpkins, Everglade
Kites, and Boat-tailed Grackles. Eighth Annual Report of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 8: 177223.
Soballe, D.M., B.L. Kimmel, R.H. Kennedy, and R.F. Gaugush. 1992. Reservoirs. In: Biodiversity of
the Southeastern United States: Aquatic Communities. C.T. Hackney, S.M. Adams, and W.H. Martin
(eds.). John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, p. 421-474.
Soucek, D.J., D.S. Cherry, and C.E. Zipper. 2003. Impacts of mine drainage and other nonpoint source
pollutants on aquatic biota in the Upper Powell River System, Virginia. Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment 9(4):1059-1073.
Spencer, C.N., B.R. McClelland, and J.A. Stanford. 1991. Shrimp stocking, salmon collapse, and eagle
displacement. BioScience 41:14-21.
Stansberry, D. 1976. Naiad mollusks. In: Endangered and Threatened Species of Alabama. Boshcung,
H. (editor). Bulletin No. 2, Alabama Museum of Natural History, Tuscaloosa, AL, p. 21-41.
Stansberry, D.H. 1969. Changes in the naiad fauna of the Cumberland River at Cumberland Falls in
eastern Kentucky. Annual Report of the American Malacological Union 1969:16-17.
Stein, C. 1976. Gastropods. In: Endangered and Threatened Species of Alabama. Boshcung, H. (editor).
Bulletin No. 2, Alabama Museum of Natural History, Tuscaloosa, AL, p. 21-41.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 62

 Stein, B.A., L.S. Kutner, J.S. Adams. 2000. Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United
States. The Nature Conservancy and Association for Biodiversity Information. New York: Oxford
University Press. 399 pp.
Strayer, D.L. 2006. Challenges for freshwater invertebrate conservation. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 25(2):271–287.
Tacon, A.G.J. and I.P. Forster. 2003. Aquafeeds and the environment: policy implications. Aquaculture
226:181–189.
Taylor, M.F.J., K.F. Suckling, and J.R. Rachlinski. 2005. The effectiveness of the Endangered Species
Act: A quantitative analysis. BioScience 55(4):360-367.
Taylor, C. A., M. L. Warren, J. F. Fitzpatrick, H. H. Hobbs, R.F. Jezerinac, W. L. Pflieger, and H. W.
Robison. 1996. Conservation status of crayfishes of the United States
and Canada. Fisheries 21(4):25–38.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1971. Water quality management plan for the French Broad River basinNolichucky sub-basin. Chattanooga, TN. 66 pp.
Tennessen, K.J. 1997. Aquatic insect resource management. p. 259-268 In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins
(editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research
Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Thoma, R.F. 2000. Cambaraus (Jugicambarus) jezerinaci (Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae), a new
species of crayfish from the Powell River drainage of Tennessee and
Virginia. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 113: 731–738.
Tiner, R.W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current status and recent trends. National Wetlands
Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 59 p.
Townsend, P.A., D.P. Helmers, C.C. Kingdon, B.E. McNeil, K.M de Beurs, and K.N. Eshleman. 2009.
Changes in the extent of surface mining and reclamation in the Central Appalachians detected using a
1976–2006 Landsat time series. Remote Sensing of Environment 113:62–72.
Tucker, C.S. and J.A. Hargreaves. 2003. Management of effluents from channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus) embankment ponds in the southeastern United States. Aquaculture 226(1-4):5-21.
Turgeon, D. D., J. F. Quinn, Jr., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. Lyons, et al. 1998.
Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks,
2nd ed. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26. 526.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Statistical Abstracts of the United States. http://www.census.gov Last
accessed August 25, 2009.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1982. Wildlife user guide for mining and reclamation. Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-126. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental
Station. 77pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 63

 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2006. Energy Demands on Water Resources: Report to Congress on
the Interdependency of Energy and Water. December 2006. 80 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution from
Agriculture. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nps/facts/point6.htm
Last accessed November 9, 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Pilot Study of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care
Products in Fish Tissue. Last accessed November 10, 2009. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ppcp/studies/fish-tissue.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009c. Coal Ash Survey Results. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/index.htm
Last accessed November 10, 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Preliminary Interpretation of the Ecological Significance
of Atrazine Stream-Water Concentrations Using a Statistically-Designed Monitoring Program. In
Support of an Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision on Atrazine. Submitted to the FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel for Review and Comment (November).
http://epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/meetings/2007/december/whitepaper_sap.pdf Last accessed August 25,
2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007b. Notice of Data Availability on the Disposal of
Coal Combustion Wastes in Landfills and Surface Impoundments. 72 FR 49714.
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/2007/August/Day-29/f17138.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. October 2005. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/305b/2004report/ Last accessed August 31, 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004b. Contaminated Sediment Report to Congress. Available
at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/report/2004/fs.htm. Last accessed November 4, 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1977. North Toe River study. Surveillance and Analysis
Division, Athens, GA. 49 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. Proposed Endangered Status for the Georgia Pigtoe
Mussel, Interrupted Rocksnail, and Rough Hornsnail with Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule. June 29,
2009. 74 FR 31114.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. Designation of critical habitat for five endangered mussels
in the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins, final rule. 69 FR 53135. August 31, 2004.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2000. Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan.
Atlanta, GA. 128 pp. Available online: ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2000/001117.pdf Last
accessed June 24, 2009.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 64

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1998. Technical/agency draft Mobile River Basin ecosystem
recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Jackson, Mississippi. 112 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Determination of Endangered Status for the Cumberland Elktoe, Oyster Mussel,
Cumberlandian Combshell, Purple Bean, and Rough Rabbitsfoot, Final Rule. 62 FR 1647. January 10,
1997.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1996. Formal Section 7 Biological Opinion and Conference
Report on Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations Under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977. September 24, 1996. 15 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Endangered Status for Five Freshwater Mussels and Proposed Threatened Status for Two Freshwater
Mussels From Eastern Gulf Slope Drainages of
Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. 59 FR 35901.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Drought worsens during September with many Georgia streams setting
new record lows. Georgia Water Science Center. 2 pp.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2009. Surface Coal Mining: Characteristics of Mining in
Mountainous Areas of Kentucky and West Virginia. GAO 10-21
Vaughan, G.L. 1979. Effects of stripmining on fish and diatoms in streams of the New River drainage
basin. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 54: 110-114.
Ward, K. Jr. 2009. Mining: West Virginia mountains go unrestored—OSM report. Charleston Gazette
July 27, 2009.
Warren, M.L. Jr., and W.R. Haag. 2005. Spatio-temporal patterns of the decline of freshwater mussels
in the Little South Fork Cumberland River, USA. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:1383-1400.
Warren, Jr., M.L., P.L. Angermeier, B.M. Burr, and W.R. Haag. 1997. Patterns of fish imperilment in
the Southeast. p. 105-164 In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The
Southeastern Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and
Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Water Environment Federation, The. 1993. The Clean Water Act of 1987. The Water Environment
Federation 318 pp.
White, D.L., T.E. Ostertag, and R.A. Hilsenbeck. 1992. Draft final status survey report for the panhandle
lily (Lilium iridollae Henry). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Agreement No. 14-16-000489-961.
Williams, J. D., S. L. H. Fuller, and R. Grace. 1992. Effects of impoundment on freshwater mussels
(Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and Tombigbee rivers in
western Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 65

 Museum of Natural History No. 13:1-10.
Williams, J.E., J.E. Johnson, D.A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. NavarroMendoza, D.E. McAllister, and J.E. Deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or
of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14(6):2-20.
Williams, J. D., M. L. Warren, K. S. Cummings, J. L. Harris, and R. J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status
of the freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada.
Fisheries 18(9):6–22.
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the Mobile
Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Tuscaloosa: University Press. 908 pp.
Williams, T. 1995. The terrible turtle trade. Audubon. 5 pp.
Wing, S., S. Freedman, and L. Band. 2002. The potential impact of flooding on confined
animal feeding operations in eastern North Carolina. Environmental Health Perspectives
110: 387–391.
Winston, M.R., C.M. Taylor, and J. Pigg. 1991. Upstream extirpation of four minnow species due to
damming of a prairie stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:98-105.
Wolcott, L.T. and R. J. Neves. 1994. Survey of the freshwater mussel fauna of the Powell River,
Virginia. Banisteria 3:1-14.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary Randy
Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Charleston, WV.
Wu, M., M. Quirindongo, J. Sass, and A. Wetzler. 2009. Poisoning the Well:
How the EPA is Ignoring Atrazine Contamination in Surface and Drinking
Water in the Central United States. Natural Resources Defense Council Report. August 2009.
http://www.nrdc.org/health/atrazine/default.asp Last accessed August 25, 2009.
Yaun L.L. and S.B. Norton. 2003. Comparing responses of macroinvertebrate metrics to
increasing stress. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22: 308–322.
Yokley, P. 1976. The effect of gravel dredging on mussel production. Bulletin of the American
Malacological Union 1976:20-22.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 66

 SPECIES ACCOUNTS
Scientific Name:
Acroneuria kosztarabi
Common Name:
Virginia Stone
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This stonefly occurs in Lawrence County, Kentucky and Tazewell County, Virginia (NatureServe
2008).
Populations:
This species is known from two counties. Total range is less than 100 square km. This species is
known from five specimens.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this stonefly as critically imperiled in Virginia and Kentucky. It is a
Special Concern Species in Kentucky.
Habitat destruction:
This species is threatened by heavy grazing by beef cattle (NatureServe 2008). It also occurs in an
area with extensive surface coal mining (EPA 2005) and could be threatened by coal mine runoff.
Acroneuria kosztarabi and its habitat will be adversely impacted by the implementation of projects
under the Jefferson National Forest plan (USFS 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species occurs on the Jefferson National Forest, where it is a Regional Forester Sensitive
Species (USFS 2008), but this designation conveys only discretionary protection. This stonefly is
a species of concern in Kentucky, but this designation provides no habitat protection.
References:
Kondratieff, B. and R. F. Kirchner. 1993. A new species of ACRONEURIA from Virginia
(PLECOPTERA:PERLIDAE). J. New York Entomol. Soc. 101(4):550-554.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Species Jefferson National Forest
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/forestplan/other/bio_eval.pdf. Last accessed March 18, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 67

 Scientific Name:
Aeschynomene pratensis
Common Name:
Meadow Joint-vetch
G Rank:
G1
Range:
In the United States, this species occurs only in Collier, Dade, and Munroe counties, Florida
(Wunderlin 1998). It is also present in parts of the Caribbean and South America (NatureServe
2008)
Habitat:
This plant is found in pine rocklands, marl prairies, cypress domes, and swales (Wunderlin 1998).
Populations:
There are only 11 known occurrences of this species in the United States, and most of these are
composed of just a few individuals (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the species seems to be stable in the short-term, but long-term
population trends are not known.
Status:
This rare species is endemic to a very small range within Florida, and exhibits narrow habitat
preferences. Its preferred habitat is extremely vulnerable to degradation. Only 11 occurrences are
known as of May 2000, and all populations are small. NatureServe (2008) ranks the meadow
joint-vetch as critically imperiled in Florida, where it is also state-listed as endangered.
Habitat destruction:
This plant is threatened by drainage and conversion of wetlands, particluarly for development
(NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is listed as endangered in the state of Florida, this designation offers this species no
substantial regulatory protections; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the
meadow joint-vetch or its habitat.
Other factors:
Meadow joint-vetch is potentially threatened by invasive exotic species (NatureServe 2008).
References:
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed
January 25, 2010.
Wunderlin, R.P. 1998. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida. University Press of Florida:
Gainesville, Florida. 806 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 68

 Scientific Name:
Agarodes logani
Common Name:
A Caddisfly
G Rank:
G1
Range:
NatureServe (2008) estimates the range of this species is less than 100 square km (less than
about 40 square miles). It appears to be restricted to one stream in Gadsden County, Florida
(Rasmussen 2004).
Populations:
This caddisfly was described from specimens collected from a ravine within the Florida A&M
University Farm Stream, northeast Florida panhandle (NatureServe 2008). The ravine was
revisited by Rasmussen (2004) who surveyed throughout the entire panhandle and only found five
specimens in the FAMU Farm Stream.
Status:
Agarodes logani is only known from one stream in Gadsden County, Florida, on an active farm
(Rasmussen 2004). It is critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
This species occurs in a single stream on a university farm where it is subject to agricultural
impacts. Any activity that adversely affects water quality, such as pollution or siltation, could
extirpate this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The lone occurrence of this species is not appropriately protected (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Rasmussen, A.K. 2004. Species diversity and ecology of Trichoptera (caddisflies) and
Plecoptera (stoneflies) in ravine ecosystems of northern Florida. Unpublished PhD.
Dissertation, University of Florida. 130 pp.
Rasmussen, A.K. 2006. Caddisfly (Insecta: Trichoptera) records from the Florida A&M
University database.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 69

 Scientific Name:
Alasmidonta arcula
Common Name:
Altamaha Arcmussel
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
The Altamaha Arcmussel is endemic to the Altamaha River system including the Ocmulgee, Little
Ocmulgee, Ohoopee, and Altamaha rivers (Heard 1975), and as of 2000 was reported as extant in
the Altamaha, Ocmulgee, and Little Ocmulgee Rivers (Gene Keferl, Coastal Georgia Community
College pers. comm., 2000 in NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The Altamaha Arcmussel inhabits sandy mud below sand bars in eddies and slow waters (Johnson
1970), sand bars in mid-channel areas in shallow water (less than 1 m) (Clarke 1981), and
backwaters of mainstem rivers in silty sand and detritus (J. Brim Box, pers. obs. in NatureServe
2008).
Populations:
There are an estimated 6-20 populations of Altamaha Arcmussel (NatureServe 2008). This
species is known from one river system in Georgia where it occurs on three tributaries-- two sites
on the Ocmulgee, three sites on the Altamaha, and one site on the Ohopee. This mussel is known
from approximately 12 historical occurrences in the Ocmulgee, Little Ocmulgee, Ohoopee, and
Altamaha Rivers of Georgia (Clarke 1981). In a 1990s survey of 276 sites throughout the
Altamaha River drainage, this mussel was detected at 17 sites (Gene Keferl, Coastal Georgia
Community College, pers. comm. 2000 cited in NatureServe 2008). Triannual Unionid Report
(1995) reports this species at 43 of 131 stations (33 percent) surveyed in the Altamaha River
system.
Historical information on abundance is lacking, but this mussel is known to be rare. NatureServe
(2008) states: "Heard (1975) reported Alasmidonta arcula as very rare and only known from a few
sites. Johnson (1970) also commented on the rarity of this species, and noted that "not more than
a few specimens have ever been collected at any station in this century save for a series of
twenty-two specimens collected by H. D. Athearn in 1962 in the Ocmulgee River, below Lumber
City, Telfair Co., Georgia." Gene Keferl, Coastal Georgia Community College (pers comm., 2000
cited in NatureServe 2008), reported that about 170 specimens (1.1 percent of all living mussels)
were collected from a total of 276 sites surveyed from 1993 to 1997 in the Altamaha River
system. In 1996, 26 A. arcula were collected from a single site on the main stem of the Altamaha
River in about 45 minutes. In a survey of 131 stations (93 Altamaha River, 19 Ocmulgee River, 5
Oconee River, 4 Ohoopee River, 10 Little Ocmulgee River), 126 specimens were found at 43
stations (anonymous, 1995)."
This mussel may be undersampled because it occurs it backwater sloughs which can be difficult to
access.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 70

 Population Trends:
The Altamaha Arcmussel is declining (decline of 10-30 percent) in the short-term and has
Status:
The Altmaha Arcmussel is imperiled in Georgia (NatureServe 2008).This species is endemic to
only three rivers in the Altamaha River drainage, was historically somewhat rare, and has
experienced substantial long-term decline. It was ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries
Society (Williams et al. 1993), but its status is being changed to vulnerable (2010 draft, in
review). It is classified as endangered by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
Loss and degradation of habitat is an imminent and ongoing threat to the Altamaha Arcmussel.
There is less than 500 km length of river system which supports this mussel, and adjacent land is
being cleared for agriculture. Excessive sedimentation from agriculture, poor land practices, and
bank and streambed destabilitzation threaten the survival of this species. This mussel is also
threatened by pollution, eutrophication, and extremely low water levels (NatureServe 2008).
The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources (Wisniewski 2008) cites excessive sedimentation due to
inadequate riparian buffer zones as a threat to this mussel, as sedimentation both covers suitable
habitat and potentially suffocates mussels.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Altamaha Arcmussel, and no
occurences are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). This mussel is listed as
Threatened in the state of Georgia, but this designation does not confer substantial regulatory
protection.
Other factors:
Any factor which reduces water quality or negatively affects host fish populations threatens the
Altamaha Arcmussel. NatureServe (2008) states that deterioration in water quality and pollution
threaten this mussel. This species is also potentially threatened by the invasive Asian clam,
Corbicula fluminea, which is present in some streams which support this species (NatureServe
2008). The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources (Wisniewski 2008) reports that direct and indirect
competition from the introduced flathead catfish may be reducing native mussel populations
through direct consumption of mussels and their host fishes. This species is also particularly
vulnerable to extinction due to rarity.
References:
Anonymous. 1995. Status survey on three endemic fresh-water mussels found in the Altamaha
River system. Triannual Unionid Report, 7: unpaginated.
Anonymous. 1995. Status survey on three endemic fresh-water mussels found in the Altamaha
River system. Triannual Unionid Report, 7: 6-7.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 71

 Clarke, A.H. 1981. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 326: 1-101.
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, J. Wisniewski. 2008. Altamaha Arcmussel species
account. Available at: http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/1379 Last accessed Jan. 21, 2010.
Heard, W.H. 1975. Determination of the endangered status of freshwater clams of the Gulf and
Southeastern states. Report for the Office of Endangered Species, Bureau of Fisheries and
Wildlife, U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. 31 pp.
Howard, A.D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus, 29:
4-11.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic Slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 140(6):
263-449.
Keferl, E. P. Department of Biology, Brunswick Junior College, Brunswick, Georgia. Personal
communication.
Lefevre, G. and W.T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propogation of
fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries, 30: 102-201.
Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water
environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science, 35(2/3): 82-85.
O'Brien, C. 2002. Host identification for three freshwater mussel species endemic to the
Altamaha River, Georgia. Ellipsaria, 4(1): 17.
Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia,
Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology, 13: 253-264.
Strayer, D.L. 1999. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society, 18(4): 468-476.
Strayer, D.L. and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling
unionaceans (Bivalvia) including two rare species of Alasmidonta. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society, 12(3): 247-258.
Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M.
Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M.
Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates
from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.
Van der Schalie, H. 1938. The naiad fauna of the Huron River in southeastern Michigan.
Miscellaneous Publication of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 40: 7-78.
Watters, G.T. 1992. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography, 19:
481-490.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 72

 Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993.
Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries, 18(9): 622.
Wisniewski, J.M., G. Krakow, and B. Albanese. 2005. Current status of endemic mussels in the
lower Ocmulgee and Altamaha Rivers. In K.J. Hatcher (ed.) Proceedings of the Georgia Water
Resources Conference, 25-27 April 2005, Athens, Georgia. 2 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 73

 Scientific Name:
Alasmidonta triangulata
Common Name:
Southern Elktoe
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The range of the Southern Elktoe covers 250-1000 square km in the Apalachicola Basin
(NatureServe 2008). This mussel is found in the Chattachoochee River system in Alabama and
Georgia, the Flint River sytem in Georgia (Athearn 1998), and the Apalachicola and lower Chipola
rivers in Florida (43 historic records) (Brim Box and Williams 2000). It is likely extirpated from
the main channel of the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers (Brim Box and Williams 2000).
In Alabama, it is still extant in Lee and Russel counties in Uchee and Little Uchee creeks
(Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Habitat:
This species' habitat includes larger creeks and rivers in moderate currents in sand substrate in the
vicinity of rocks (Heard 1979, Clench and Turner 1956). In Chattahoochee River tributaries, this
mussel was detected in sand bars, but was not detected in muddy sediments or near rocks. It has
also been detected in sand and silt substrate (Brim Box and Williams 2000).
Ecology:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) report that the Southern Elktoe is a long-term brooder with glochidia
present year round. Glochidial hosts are unknown.
Populations:
There are less than five extant populations of Southern Elktoe, and these populations are very
small. Historically this species was known from 29 sites in the four major rivers of the
Appalachicola basin of Florida, Alabama, and Georgia. It still exists at only 3 or 4 sites, at one of
which, Lake Blackshear, there are only dead shells (Brim Box and Williams 2000, Battle et al.
2003, NatureServe 2008).
Total population size for the Southern Elktoe is estimated at 50 - 1000 individuals, but this is
likely an overestimate, as only 14 individuals have been recently reported. This rare species was
not historically abundant (Clench and Turner 1956). There are no remaining populations with
significant numbers. Brim Box and Williams (2000) only detected two live specimens from a
single location in Potato Creek, a tributary of the Flint River in Alabama. Battle et al. (2003)
report that nine individuals were found in a survey of six sites in the Elmodel Wildlife
Management Area in Ichawaynochaway Creek in southwest Georgia. Only two other specimens
have been reported from the Flint River basin since 1991 (Battle et al. 2003). A single live
mussel was also detected in Uchee Creek, Alabama, in 1994 (Brim Box and Williams 2000).
Population Trends:
This mussel has "suffered severe declines across its limited range" (NatureServe 2008). It has
severely declined in the short term (decline of more than 70 percent in population, range, area
occupied, and/or number or condition of occurrences), and has experienced a long-term decline
of 75 to 90 percent (NatureServe 2008). Of 29 known sites, this mussel is now only extant at
three, and in very low numbers.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 74

 Status:
The Southern Elktoe is critically imperiled in Alabama and Georgia (S1), and is not ranked in FL
(SNR), where only one live individual has been detected in the past 20 years (NatureServe 2008).
It is being ranked as endangered by the American Fisheries Society (2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
The habitat of the Southern Elktoe is known to be degraded and fragmented (Brim Box and
Williams 2000). This species is threatened by dredging activities in the Apalachicola River (Brim
Box and Williams 2000). In Georgia, this mussel is threatened by drought and water withdrawals
(Battle et al. 2003). The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources (Wisniewski 2008) reports that this
mussel is threatened by habitat fragmentation, population isolation, impoundments, water
withdrawals, drought, and sedimentation, stating, "Excessive water withdrawals in the lower Flint
River basin coupled with severe drought could cause this species to become extirpated from
Georgia." Other potential threats include activities that degrade water quality (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect this species, and no sites are appropriately
protected and managed. This mussel is Endangered in Georgia, and is a Priority 1 Species of
Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama, but these designations do not provide substantial
regulatory protection. This species has been detected on the Elmodel Wildlife Management Area
in Georgia (NatureServe 2008).
Other factors:
This mussel is threatened by any activity which degrades water quality. It is now inherently
vulnerable to extinction due to rarity and drastically reduced range and population size.
References:
Athearn, H.D. 1998. Additional records and notes on the unionid fauna of the Gulf Drainage of
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 5(76): 465-467.
Battle, J., S.W. Golladay, and A.R. Bambarger. 2003. Mussel conservation in the
Chickasawhatchee and Elmodel Wildlife Management Areas: methods for a relocation study.
Pages 860-863 in K.J. Hatcher (ed.) Proceedings of the Georgia Water Resources Conference,
Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Brim Box, J. and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 21: 1-143.
Clarke, A.H. 1981. The Freshwater Molluscs of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences:
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 446 pp.
Clarke, A.H. 1981. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 326: 1-101.
Clench, W.J. and R.D. Turner. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from
the Escambia to the Suwanee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences,
1(3): 97-239.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 75

 Deyrup, Mark and Richard Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. IV:
Invertebrates. R. E. Ashton Jr. (series ed.). University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL. 798 pp.
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, Wisniewski, J. 2008. Species Account. Accessed Feb. 4,
2010 at:
http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accounts/invert
ebrates/alasmidonta_triangulata.pdf
Heard, W.H. 1979. Identification manual of the fresh water clams of Florida. State of Florida,
Department of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series, 4(2): 1-82.
Howard, A.D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus, 29:
4-11.
Johnson, R.I. 1967. Additions to the Unionid fauna of the Gulf Drainage of Alabama, Georgia
and Florida (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Breviora, 270: 1-21.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic Slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 140(6):
263-449.
Johnson, R.I. 1972. The Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of peninsular Florida. Bulletin of the
Florida State Museum of Biological Science, 16(4): 181-249.
Lefevre, G. and W.T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propogation of
fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries, 30: 102-201.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Moyle, P. and J. Bacon. 1969. Distribution and abundance of molluscs in a fresh water
environment. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science, 35(2/3): 82-85.
Ortmann, A.E. 1919. Monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III. Systematic account of
the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, 8(1): 1-385.
Strayer, D. 1983. The effects of surface geology and stream size on freshwater mussel (Bivalvia,
Unionidae) distribution in southeastern Michigan, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology, 13: 253-264.
Strayer, D.L. 1993. Macrohabitats of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionacea) in streams of the
northern Atlantic Slope. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 12(3): 236-246.
Strayer, D.L. 1999. Use of flow refuges by unionid mussels in rivers. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society, 18(4): 468-476.
Strayer, D.L. and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling
unionaceans (Bivalvia) including two rare species of Alasmidonta. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society, 12(3): 247-258.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 76

 Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M.
Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, M.
Vecchione, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates
from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd Edition. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland: 526 pp.
Van der Schalie, H. 1938. The naiad fauna of the Huron River in southeastern Michigan.
Miscellaneous Publication of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 40: 7-78.
Watters, G.T. 1992. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography, 19:
481-490.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 77

 Scientific Name:
Alasmidonta varicosa
Common Name:
Brook Floater
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
DD - Data deficient

Range:
The brook floater is historically known from Connecticut, Delaware, Washington, D.C., Georgia,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia (NatureServe
2008). Currently, populations are known in Maine’s Aroostook, Cumberland, Hancock,
Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, Waldo, and Washington Counties,
but this species is extirpated from the Dennys and Presumpscot Rivers (Nedeau et al. 2000). In
Massachusetts, populations are reported from the Connecticut River, and possibly the Merrimack
drainage, though this species has been extirpated from the Charles River drainage (Smith 2000).
In Vermont, the brook floater is present in the lower reaches of the West River, and was
historically known in the Connecticut River (Fichtel and Smith 1995, Johnson 1915). In
Connecticut, it is known in a few streams in the Connecticut and Thames River watersheds
(Nedeau and Victoria 2003, pers. obs. as cited in NatureServe 2008). It is known in
Pennsylvania’s Potomac, Susquehanna, and Delaware River basins (Bogan 1993). In the Delaware
River basin, the brook floater has been observe in the Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Broadhead
drainage that runs from New York to the Pennsylvania border (Strayer and Ralley 1991). In New
Jersey, it is reported from the Stony Brook, Musconetcong, Raritan, Lamington, and upper
Delaware Rivers. In Maryland, the North Branch of the Potomac, Upper Potomac, Middle
Potomac, and Washington Metro drainages support populations of the brook floater (Bogan and
Proch 1995). In Virginia, it is present in the middle James-Willis, the North Fork of the
Shenandoah, and parts of the Potomac River, but has been extirpated from the Middle PotomacAnacostia-Occoquan, the South Fork of the Shenandoah, and the Shenandoah drainages (VA NHP
2007 as cited in NatureServe 2008). West Virginia’s Patterson Creek (part of the North Branch
Potomac drainage) and Cacapon Town drainages support populations of the brook floater (Clayton
et al. 2001, Taylor 1985, WV NHP as cited in NatureServe 2008). Four populations in South
Carolina are known in the Beaverdam, Stevens, Turkey, and Mountain Creeks (Alderman 1998);
the brook floater is extirpated from the Cooper Santee River basin (Bogan and Alderman 2004).
North Carolina hosts 12 populations: the Roanoke, Neuse, Cape Fear, Pee Dee, and Catawba River
basins are known to contain the brook floater (Bogan 2002), as are Anson, Burke, Caldwell,
Chatham, Forsyth, Granville, Moore, Orange, Randolph, Surry, and Yadkin Counties (LeGrand et
al. 2006). This mussel is found rarely at the southernmost edge of its range in the Savannah River
basin on the border between South Carolina and Georgia (GA NHP as cited in NatureServe 2008).
A fairly large population (less than 1,000 individuals) was recently located in the Suncook River
of New Hampshire (Conaboy 2006).
There are fewer than 15 populations of the brook floater in Canada: it is found in parts of New
Brunswick’s Bay of Fundy drainage (Athearn 1961, 1963) and in few locations in Nova Scotia.
This species is considered rare in Canada and listed under COSEWIC as a species of special
concern (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 78

 Habitat:
A. varicosa inhabits creeks and small rivers, prefers the stable bank conditions afforded by gravel
substrates or sandy shoals, and is generally found in riffles and moderate rapids (Nedeau et al.
2000, Clark and Berg 1959, Strayer and Ralley 1993).
Ecology:
Brooding period is approximately May-August, but the length of time required for glochidia to
complete metamorphosis to juvenile form is unknown. Species known to host glochidia include
the long-nose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas),
pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), marginated madtom (Noturus insignis), yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), blacknosed dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) (Schulz
and Marbain 1998). Juveniles disperse via host fish vectors (lodged in gills), and adults are
sessile, though passive movement by water currents may occur (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Approximately 150 historic occurrences are known, 60 - 80 of which have been extirpated. It is
believed that more populations have been destroyed than will be discovered in the future
(NatureServe 2008). Global population size is unknown (NatureServe 2008). Though the brook
floater occurs over a wide geographic range, populations are sparsely distributed, generally small,
and of dubious viability.
Population Trends:
The brook floater has disappeared from up to 80 sites across its range, and remaining populations
are experiencing steep declines (NatureServe 2008). NatureServe (2008) reports that the brook
floater has experienced substantial decline of up to 75 percent.
The brook floater is exirpated in Rhode Island (Raithel and Hartenstein 2006). Only a few
populations of this species remain in Connecticut, and they are small and show little evidence of
successful reproduction (Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 2003). It is
extirpated in the Cooper-Santee and Pee Dee River basins in South Carolina (Bogan and Alderman
2004). Reproductive success in the Potomac River is reportedly negligible.
This mussel has declined drastically in New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Fish and Game
Department (2006) states: "Based on evidence of recruitment and abundance observed during
CPUE surveys in 1993 and 1995, the Blackwater, Suncook, Soucook, and the North Branch Sugar
River populations appear the most robust. Nevertheless the North Branch Sugar River population
is small and insular and therefore at risk of harm from pollution and habitat degradation. Mussel
populations end abruptly at the North Branch and Sugar River confluence where water quality is
low (von Oettingen, USFWS, personal communication). Long-term monitoring of the Piscataquog
River Henry Bridge population shows a decline in mussel density from 0.4 per meter squared in
1996 to 0.02 in 1999 (Wicklow, Saint Anselm College, unpublished data). A mussel bed on the
South Branch of the Piscataquog River, monitored periodically since 1993, has been nearly
extirpated. The coastal watershed populations are at high risk of extirpation."
This species is nearly extirpated in New York. The New York Natural Heritage Program states:
"Formerly widespread in southeastern New York, this species has disappeared from many sites
since the 1950's and is now extremely rare in the state. Populations in the Housatonic and Passaic
basins have apparently disappeared and surveys of nearly a dozen historical populations

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 79

 throughout the Susquehanna River watershed in 1991 turned up only 1 living animal. Populations
in the Shawangunk Kill and Delaware River basins (Lellis 2001) are sparse and limited in extent.
Only the Neversink River population currently appears healthy although it also apparently declined
by an estimated 38,000 individuals during the mid-1990's (Strayer and Jirka 1997)."
There are only four remaining populations of this species in Massachusetts, and their viability is
questionable. The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (2009) states: "Recent
studies indicate that the extant populations in Massachusetts are significantly fragmented, low in
density, and prone to mortality due to old age and poor condition. A few patches of brook floaters
with densities high enough to be considered viable exist, however, they exhibit a high degree of
spatial clustering and are significantly isolated from one another. There is growing concern that
some populations have dwindled to the point where reproduction is unlikely and persistence
beyond the life span of the remaining individuals is improbable."
Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists the brook floater as critically imperiled in Connecticut, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and
West Virginia, imperiled in Georgia, and Pennsylvania, vulnerable in Maine, and extirpated from
Delaware. It is not ranked or currently under review in Washington, D.C. and South Carolina. It is
state-listed as endangered in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, and Virginia, and as threatened in Maine, New York, and Vermont. It is ranked as
threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Across its range, habitat degradation from impoundments, channel alteration, logging, mining,
agriculture, and development is a primary threat to this species and has already resulted in the
extirpation of many populations (New Hampshire Fish and Game Department 2006,
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 2009, New York Natural Heritage Program
2009, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 2010). Habitat fragmentation further
threatens the brook floater. Long-term studies indicate that stream fragmentation disrupts
Alasmidonta life cycles, prevents host fish migration, blocks gene flow, and prohibits
recolonization, resulting in reduced recruitment rates, decreased population densities, and a
higher probability of extirpations (Wicklow 2004).
Overutilization:
Collection of local populations for biological supply or other purposes may be a localized threat
to this species (NatureServe 2008). The population in the Penobscot River in Maine is thought to
have been harvested in 1993 (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No occurrences are known to be adequately protected at this time (NatureServe 2008). Some
populations in North and South Carolina occur on unmanaged Forest Service land, and one
Maryland population is located within the Sideling Hill Creek Bioreserve managed by the Nature
Conservancy (NatureServe 2008). Though the brook floater is listed as threatened or endangered
in several states, these designations afford it no substantial regulatory protection.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 80

 Other factors:
Pollution is a primary threat to the brook floater because it appears to be highly sensitive to low
dissolved oxygen levels, pollution, and siltation (Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection 2003). Toxic releases from wastewater treatment plants, poultry and hog processing
plants, and siltation and pesticide runoff from a variety of sources threaten this species' survival
(Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 2010). Displacement by the Asiatic clam,
Corbicula fluminea, and the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, may also threaten this species
(Clarke 1984, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 2003). Remaining
populations of A. varicosa are generally small and isolated and thus may be vulnerable to
extirpation by local stochastic events or inbreeding depression. The Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife (2009) states: "The persistence of brook floaters in Massachusetts seems
to be closely tied to its survival and reproduction within isolated areas that are highly vulnerable to
random events such as mortality related to floods, droughts, predators, poorly planned
development or disturbance, pollution, or even trampling." The darter and sculpin host fishes of
this species are also sensitive to water quality, and the floater is threatened by any factor which
threatens the fish populations on which it depends for reproduction. In New York, this species is
threatened by hybridization with A. marginata; many intermediate individuals, not assignable to
either species, were found in the Susquehanna River basin in the mid 1990's (Strayer and
Fetterman 1999).
References:
Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Alderman. 2004. Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of South
Carolina. Accessed March 26, 2010 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/fms/fmarion/maps/documents/NRWorkbookandKeytotheFreshwaterBivalvesofSC.pdf
Clarke, A.H., and C.O. Berg. 1959. The freshwater mussels of central New York. Cornell
University Agriculture Experiment Station (N.Y. State College of Agriculture), Memoir, 36.
Conaboy, C. 2006. Mussels lose their river home. Concord Monitor [Concord, New Hampshire],
23 May 2006.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. A field guide to the freshwater
mussels of Connecticut. Bureau of Natural Resources Wildlife Division. Accessed March 26,
2010 at: http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/wildlife/pdf_files/nongame/fwmusl.pdf
Fichtel, C. and D.G. Smith. 1995. The freshwater mussels of Vermont. Nongame and Natural
Heritage Program, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Technical Report 18. 54 pp.
James, M.R. 1987. Ecology of the freshwater mussel Hyridella menziesi in a small
oliogotrophic lake. Archives of Hydrobiology, 108: 337-348.
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. 2009. Brook Floater, Alasmidonta varicose.
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. Accessed March 26, 2010 at:
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/species_info/nhfacts/alasmidonta_varicosa.pdf
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 4, 2009 ).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 81

 Nedeau, E.J., M.A. McCollough, and B.I. Swartz. 2000. The freshwater mussels of Maine. Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta, Maine. 118
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. 2006. New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan
Appendix A: Species Profiles – Invertebrates. Accessed March 26, 2010 at:
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/Wildlife_Plan/WAP_species_PDFs/Invertibrates/Brook
%20Floater.pdf
New York Natural Heritage Program. 2009. Conservation Guide - Brook Floater (Alasmidonta
varicosa). Accessed March 26, 2010 at: http://www.acris.nynhp.org/report.php?id=8378
Schulz, C. and K. Marbain. 1998. Host species for rare freshwater mussels in Virginia. Triannual
Unionid Report, 16: 32-38.
Strayer, D., and J. Ralley. 1993. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling
unionaceana (Bivalvia), including two rare species of Alasmidonta. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 12: 247-258.
Strayer, David L. and A.R. Fetterman. 1999. Changes in distribution of freshwater mussels
(Unionidae) in the upper Susquehanna River basin, 1955-1965 to 1996-1997. American Midland
Naturalist 142:328-339.
Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2010. The Virginia Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
Appendix H — Threats to Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Accessed March 26, 2010 at:
http://www.bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-action-plan/appendix-h.pdf
Wicklow, B.J. 2004. Conservation and life history strategies of endangered and at risk species of
Alasmidonta (Bivalvia, Unionidae). Journal of Shellfish Research 23:316-317.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 82

 Scientific Name:
Allocapnia brooksi
Common Name:
Sevier Snowfly
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This species is known from four occurrences in Hawkins Co., Sevier Co., and Sullivan Co.,
Tennessee (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are four occurrences of this stonefly. Population information is not available.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled.
Habitat destruction:
All populations of this species are experiencing severe impacts from poor agricultural practices
and development (Kondratieff and Kirchner 1999).
According to Kirchner et al (2002), "all the areas in Tennessee where the above species [including
A. brooksi] have been collected are highly impacted by past and current agricultural practices and
other disturbances. These species are, no doubt, imperiled throughout their ranges, and it is
strongly suggested that potential listing should be considered."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species is not protected by any existing regulatory mechanisms.
References:
Kirchner, R.F. B.C. Kondratieff and R.E. Zuellig. 2002. The Tennessee Type Locality Of
Allocapnia Perplexa And A New Kentucky Location For Allocapnia Cunninghami. Entological
News v.113 n.5 pp.332-335, November & December.
Stark, B.P. 1996. Last updated 16 February 2001. North American Stonefly List. Online.
Available: http://www.mc.edu/campus/users/stark/Sfly0102.htm.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 83

 Scientific Name:
Allocapnia cunninghami
Common Name:
Karst Snowfly
G Rank:
G1
Range:
Allocapnia cunninghami is known from three occurrences in Sumner Co., Tennessee, one in
Cumberland Co., Kentucky, and more recently it was found in Adair, Allen, Metcalfe, and Monroe
counties, Kentucky.
Habitat:
According to Kirchner et al. (2002), "Allocapnia cunninghami has been taken only in spring-fed
streams."
Populations:
Population information is not available for this species. It is now known from six counties.
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks A. cunninghami as critically imperiled in Kentucky and Tennessee.
According to Kirchner et al. (2002), "all the areas in Tennessee where the above species
[including A. cunninghami] have been collected are highly impacted by past and current
agricultural practices and other disturbances. These species are, no doubt, imperiled throughout
their ranges, and it is strongly suggested that potential listing should be considered."
Habitat destruction:
This snowfly is threatened across its narrow range. All known sites for this species are
experiencing severe impacts from poor agricultural practices and development (Kirchner et al.
2002, NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this species.
References:
Kirchner, R.F., B.C. Kondratieff and R.E. Zuellig . 2002. The Tennessee Type Locality Of
Allocapnia Perplexa And A New Kentucky Location for Allocapnia Cunninghami
(Plecopteraicapniidae). Entonological News 113(5): 332-335.
Stark, B.P. 1996. Last updated 16 February 2001. North American Stonefly List. Online.
Available: http://www.mc.edu/campus/users/stark/Sfly0102.htm.
Tarter, D.C., D.L. Chaffee, and S.A. Grubbs. 2006. Revised checklist of the stoneflies
(Plecoptera) of Kentucky, U.S.A. Entomological News, 117(1): 1-10.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 84

 Scientific Name:
Allocapnia fumosa
Common Name:
Smokies Snowfly
G Rank:
G2
Range:
According to NatureServe (2008), Allocapnia fumosa is known from high elevation rheocrenes of
the Mt. Rogers National Recreation Area (Grayson Co., Smyth Co.), Virginia and Great Smoky
Mountain National Park (Haywood Co., Macon Co., North Carolina; Sevier Co., Tennessee).
Habitat:
This stonefly is restricted to high elevation springs that flow directly from the ground.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) inidcates that the Smokies Snowfly is known from less than 20 occurrences
in high elevations in VA, NC and TN.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks A. fumosa as critically imperiled in Virginia and vulnerable (S3?) in
Tennessee. It is not ranked in North Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
The habitat for A. fumusa is threatened by logging and acid deposition (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
A. fumosa occurs in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Parker et al. 2007). Occurrences
outside the park are not protected, and even within the park the species is threatened by acid
deposition.
References:
Parker, C.R., et al. 2007. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Megaloptera, and Trichoptera of Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. Southeastern Naturalist, Vol. 6, Special Issue 1: The Great
Smoky Mountains National Park All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory: A Search for Species in Our
Own Backyard, pp. 159-174.
Stark, B.P. 1996. Last updated 16 February 2001. North American Stonefly List. Online.
Available: http://www.mc.edu/campus/users/stark/Sfly0102.htm.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 85

 Scientific Name:
Alnus maritima
Common Name:
Seaside Alder
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The seaside alder is native to the southeastern United States, and is present across a disjunct range
in small areas of Oklahoma, southwestern Delaware, eastern Maryland, and one location in
Georgia. The largest populations occur along the Nanticoke River in Delaware and eastern
Maryland, and others are known elsewhere on the Delmarva Peninsula (NatureServe 2008).
Natural heritage records indicate this species is present in Delaware’s Kent and Sussex Counties,
in Georgia’s Bartow County, in Maryland’s Dorchester, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties, and
in Oklahoma’s Johnston and Pontotoc Counties. Though formerly present there, it is reportedly
extirpated from Maryland’s Cecil County (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
It is found along streambanks and pond edges, often in standing water (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This species often reproduces clonally: a single occurrence may be comprised of hundreds of
individuals originating from the same root system (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
It is believed that there are approximately 50 occurrences across this species’ range, but
determining total population size is difficult due to clonal reproduction (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Population trends are not reported.
Status:
Though this species is locally abundant in some small areas, including parts of the Nanticoke
River, there are few occurrences overall. NatureServe (2008) reports that the seaside alder is
critically imperiled in Georgia, imperiled in Oklahoma, and vulnerable in Maryland and Delaware.
It is categorized as near threatened by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
This tree species is highly sensitive to the impacts of channelization, damming, drainage of
marshy and riparian areas, and to the effects of residential, industrial, and agricultural
development on the semi-aquatic habitat that it requires. NatureServe (2008) reports that it is
resilient to some environmental change if suitable habitat remains, but if significant alterations to
habitat occur, it is susceptible to exclusion by changed successional patterns.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the seaside alder.
References:

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 86

 Scientific Name:
Alosa alabamae
Common Name:
Alabama Shad
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
The shad is an anadromous species that occurs in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi and Oklahoma. It used to occur in Iowa and
Tennessee (NatureServe 2008). NatureServe (2008) lists historical range as including the Gulf
Coast from the Suwannee River, Florida, to the Mississippi River, westward in the Ouachita River
system to eastern Oklahoma. Remaining populations occur in the Apalachicola River system
below Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam, in the Pascagoula River drainage of Mississippi, in the
Conecuh and Choctawhatchee rivers in southcentral and southeastern Alabama, and the Mobile
River drainage of Alabama (Robison and Buchanan 1988, Mettee et al. 1996, Ross 2001,
Boschung and Mayden 2004, Mettee 2004, NatureServe 2008). The species has undergone major
range contraction with records in Mobile Bay and the Alabama River limited to single adults
(Mettee et al. 1996). The shad used to occur as far north as Keokuk, Iowa in the Missssippi, at
Louisville in the Ohio River, and in eastern Oklahoma (Evermann 1902, Coker 1930, Moore
1957, Miller and Robison 2004). Today, spawning populations of the shad are believed to still
occur in the Apalachicola, Choctawhachee, Conecuh, Pasgacoulah, Ouachita, Missouri,
Gasconade, Osage, and Meramec Rivers (NMFS 2008).
Habitat:
This species migrates from the ocean to medium to large coastal rivers to spawn (Etnier 1997).
In Florida, spawning occurred at 19-22 C over coarse sand and gravel in moderate current
(Laurence and Yerger 1966, Mills 1972). Young have been observed in swift water over rocky
shoals (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates only six to 20 populations. Mettee et al. (1996) observed that
there are only two known extant spawning runs in the Mississippi River System with other
spawning runs occurring in the Florida Panhandle and southern Alabama. Populations are small
and the species is considered very rare in large portions of its historic range (Lee et al. 1980,
Robison and Buchanan 1988, Etnier and Starnes 1993, Pflieger 1997, NatureServe 2008). Based
on their own and others surveys, Mettee and O'Neil (2003) concluded that spawning populations
of shad are "relatively small."
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) lists decline in short-term trend of as much as 30 percent, further noting that
the shad is probably declining in number of populations and population size at an unknown rate.
The shad has likely experienced dramtic long-term declines (see below in status).
Status:
The Alabama shad was once an abundant species that supported commercial fisheries in Alabama,
Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana and Iowa (NMFS 2008). The species has declined dramatically because of
habitat loss and degradation caused by impoundments, pollution, dredging and other factors
(NatureServe 2008, NMFS 2008). It is considered severely depleted in the Mississippi River System

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 87

 with small numbers of fish found sporadically and is likely limited to only two spawning runs (Meramec
River, Missouri, and Ouachita River, Arkansas) (Lee et al. 1980, Page and Burr 1991, Pflieger 1997,
NatureServe 2008). Surveys in Arkansas in both the Arkansas and Mississippi Rivers did not yield any
specimens (Buchanan 1976, Sanders et al. 1985, Carter 1984; Pennington et al. 1980, 1983; Beckett and
Pennington 1986). It is likely extirpated in Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa and Louisiana, and severely
reduced in Alabama, where it may be extirpated from the upper Tombigbee, Cahaba, Coosa, and upper
Alabama rivers (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Ross 2001, Metee and O'Neil 2003, Miller and Robison 2004,
Mirarchi et al. 2004). Mettee (2004) classify this fish as a "high conservation concern taxa." It is
categorized by the IUCN as endangered, and by the American Fisheries Society (Jelks 2008) as
threatened due to habitat loss and overutilization. In a meeting between the Southeastern Fishes Council
and the Center for Biological Diversity, there was a unanimous consensus that the shad should be listed
as threatened (SFC and CBD 2010).
AFS (2008) lists as threatened because of threats to habitat and over-exploitation.
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Lousiana,
and Mississippi, imperiled in Alabama, Missouri, and Oklahoma, historical or extirpated in Iowa,
Indiana, and Tennessee, and not rated in Florida or Illinois.
Habitat destruction:
The Alabama shad has experienced widespread declines because of loss of habitat to dams, rapid
urbanization, pollution and other factors (Mettee and O'Neil 2003, Mirarchi et al. 2004, NMFS
2008). The shad has been cut-off from many historical spawning areas by dams and locks
(Robison and Buchanan 1988, Etnier 1997, Mirarchi et al. 2004). For example, dams on the
lower Tombigbee and Alabama Rivers built in the 1960's resulted in steep declines in shad
populations in the Mobile River Basin due to loss of spawning areas (Barkuloo et al. 1993,
Mettee and O'Neil 2003, NMFS 2008, NatureServe 2008). Mettee (2004) list agricultural
operations, dredging, and possible reservoir construction for water supply on major tributaries as
major threats to remaining populations in Alabama. Similarly, Metee and O'Neil (2003) list
construction of locks and dams and dredging as causes of decreasing shad populations. These
threats likely apply throughout the species' range. Jelks et al. (2008) lists the Alabama shad as
threatened because of the present or threatened destruction, modification or reduction of habitat
and range.
There are currently new reservoirs proposed on Murder Creek, the Little Choctawhatchee and on
smaller tribs that further threaten the shad (SFC and CBD 2010).
Overutilization:
NatureServe (2008) notes that commercial fishing in the Ohio River was a threat historically, but
with the crash in fish numbers, there is no longer a commercial fishery. Jelks et al. (2008)
describe this species as threatened in part because of over-exploitation for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes including intentional eradication or indirect
impacts of fishing.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) states that it is unknown whether any occurrences of Alabama shad are
appropriately protected and notes that a "primary management need is the creation of fishways so that
shad can migrate through or around locks and dams."
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 88

 Mississippi lists the shad as a tier 1 "species of greatest conservation need." Tier 1 species are those
"that are in need of immediate conservation action and/or research because of extreme rarity, restricted
distribution, unknown or decreasing population trends, specialized habitat needs and/or habitat
vulnerability. Some species may be considered critically imperiled and at risk of extinction/extirpation."
This designation, however, provides no regulatory protection for the shad.
Alabama also lists as a "species of greatest conservation need" with a priority of 2. Although the state of
Alabama has developed a "comprehensive wildlife comprehensive strategy," this strategy is entirely
voluntary and provides no regulatory protection for the shad (see
http://www.outdooralabama.com/research-mgmt/cwcs/outline.cfm; accessed March 12, 2009). There is
also no evidence that it will ensure the survival and recovery of the shad and indeed, the strategy does
not provide any specific protections for the shad.
The shad is also listed as a species of special concern by the state of Georgia and the National Marine
Fisheries Service. As above, these designations do not provide any regulatory protection.
Other factors:
The Alabama shad is threatened by pollution from a variety of sources and by drought. Mettee
(2004) list increased sedimentation, pesticide runoff from agricultural operations, and prolonged
drought as major threats to remaining populations in Alabama. Similarly, Metee and O'Neil (2003)
list siltation and water pollution as causes of decreasing shad populations.
References:
Barkuloo, J. et al. 1993. Systematic and population status of Alabama shad. Report to U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Barkuloo, J. M. 1993. Systematic and population status of Alabama shad in rivers tributary to the
Gulf of Mexico. Panama City, Florida, 1993.
Beckett, D. C., and C. H. Pennington. 1986. Water quality, macroinvertebrates, larval fishes, and
fishes of the lower Mississippi River--a synthesis. Tech. Rep. E-86-12, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Berry, F. H. 1964. Review of: S. F. Hildebrand, family Clupeidae, in: The fishes of the western
North Atlantic. Copeia 1964:720-730.
Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Buchanan, T. M. 1976. An evaluation of the effects of dredging within the Arkansas River
Navigation System. Vol. 5. The effects upon the fish fauna. Arkansas Water Resources Research
Center Publ. No. 47. 277 pp.
Carter, F. A. 1984. Fishes collected from the Mississippi River and adjacent flood areas in
Arkansas, river mile 770.0 to river mile 816.0. M.S. thesis, Arkansas State University,
Jonesboro. 42 pp.
Coker, R. E. 1930. Studies of common fishes of the Mississippi River at Keokuk. Bulletin of the

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 89

 United States Bureau of Fisheries 45:141-225. [Publication year also given as 1929]
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.
Etnier, D.A. 1997. Jeopardized southeastern freshwater fishes: a search for causes. In G.W.
Benz and D.E. Collins (eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern Perspective. Southeast
Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1. Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur,
Georgia.
Evermann, B. W. 1902. Description of a new species of shad (Alosa ohioensis) with notes on
other food-fishes of the Ohio River. Report of the U.S. Fisheries Commission (1901):273-288.
Gunning, G. E., and R. D. Suttkus. 1990. Decline of the Alabama shad, ALOSA ALABAMAE, in
the Pearl River, Louisiana-Mississippi: 1963-1988. Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings
21:3-4.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Laurence, G. C., and R. W. Yerger. 1966. Life history studies of the Alabama shad, alosa
alabamae, in the Apalachicola River, Florida. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the
Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commisioners, pp. 260-273.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Limburg, K. E., and J. R. Waldman. 2003. Biodiversity, status, and conservation of the world's
shads. American Fisheries Society Symposium 35.
Metee, M.F. and P.E. O'Neil. 2003. Status of Alabama shad and skipjack herring in Gulf of
Mexico drainages. Pages 157-170. In: K.E. Limburg and J.R. Waldman (eds.). Biodiversity,
Status, and Conservation of the World's Shads. American Fisheries Society Symposium 35.
Bethesda, Maryland.
Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin.
Oxmoor House, Birmingham, Alabama. 820 pp.
Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and T. E. Shepard. 1995. Status survey of gulf sturgeon Acipenser
oxyrinchus desotoi and Alabama shad Alosa alabamae in the Choctawhatchee, Conecuh, and
Alabama river systems, 1992-95. Geological Survey of Alabama open-file report. 30 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 90

 Mettee, M.F. 2004. Alabama Shad. In Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E.
O'Neil. (Editors). Alabama wildlife. Volume 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University
AFS (2008) lists as threatened because of threats to habitat and over-exploitation. of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii + 255 pp.
Miller, R. J., and H. W. Robison. 2004. Fishes of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman. 450 pp.
Mills, J. G. 1972. Biology of the Alabama shad in northwest Florida. State of Florida Department
of Natural Resources, Technical Series No. 68. 24 pp.
Moore, G. A. 1957. Fishes (pages 31-210 in Vertebrates of the United States, by W. F. Blair et
al.). McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.
NMFS. 2008. Species of Concern: Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae). NOAA National Marine
Fisheries Service. September, 22 2008. Silver Spring, MD.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Pennington, C. H., H. L. Schramm, Jr., M. E. Potter, and M. P. Farrell. 1980. Aquatic habitat
studies on the lower Mississippi river, river mile 480 to 530. Report 5, Fish Studies-pilot report.
Environmental and Water Quality Operational Studies. Misc. Paper E-80-1. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg. 45 pp.
Pennington, C. H., J. A. Baker, and M. E. Potter. 1983. Fish populations along natural and
revetted banks on the lower Mississippi river. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
3(2):204-211.
Pflieger, W. L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation. viii + 343
pp.
Pflieger, W. L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri. Revised edition. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Jefferson City. vi + 372 pp.
Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott.
1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American
Fisheries Society, Special Publishing 20. 183 pp.
Robison, H. W., and T. M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press,
Fayetteville, Arkansas. 536 pp.
Rodriguez, M. A. 2002. Restricted movement in stream fish: the paradigm is complete, not lost.
Ecology 83:1-13.
Ross, S. T. (with W. M. Brennaman, W. T. Slack, M. T. O'Connell, and T. L. Peterson). 2001. The
inland fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi. xx + 624 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 91

 Rulifson, R. A., and M. T. Huish. 1982. Anadromous fish in the southeastern United States and
recommendations for development of a management plan. Atlanta, Georgia.
Sanders, L. G., J. A. Baker, C. L. Bond, and C. H. Pennington. 1985. Biota of selected aquatic
habitats of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. Tech. Rep. E-85-6. U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.
Smith, P. W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana. 314 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 92

 Scientific Name:
Amblyopsis spelaea
Common Name:
Northern Cavefish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G4
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The northern cavefish occurs in underground waters of the Pennyroyal and Mitchell plateaus,
from the Mammoth Cave karst ecosystem in Kentucky north into southern Indiana (Pearson and
Boston 1994). This fish is not known to occur in caves north of the East Fork of the White River
in Indiana or in caves south or west of the Mammoth Cave system (Keith 1988). The species
occurs across its historic range, but has been lost from many sites (FWS 2003).
Habitat:
This fish occurs in cave streams, springs, and spring basins (Keith 1988).
Populations:
Pearson and Boston (1994) documented this fish in just over 100 caves, and estimate total
population size as at least 5600 individuals. This estimate is considered to be conservative based
on limited underground habitat accessibility. Population sizes are small, and typically range from
1-23, and at some sites up to 220 individuals (Keith 1988, NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information is unavailable for this species. Pearson and Boston (1994) report that two
populations have been lost. Culver and Pipan (2009) report the extirpation of this fish at a site in
Indiana that was destroyed by quarrying. FWS (2003) report that 49 historical sites have been lost.
Status:
Within this species' very limited range, many historical sites have been extirpated. NatureServe
(2008) ranks the northern cavefish as critically imperiled in Indiana and vulnerable in Kentucky.
This fish is classified as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008) due to
habitat degradation and narrow range. It is listed as endangered by the state of Indiana.
Habitat destruction:
This species’ highly restricted habitat is located at or near local base level and is vulnerable to
virtually any natural or anthropogenic disturbance (Keith 1988). Threats to karst ecosystems,
including the Mammoth Cave Karst Aquifer, come from a variety of agricultural, urban, and
transportation landuse practices.Clearcuts and logging roads threaten this fish due to
sedimentation and reduced liter input (Pearson and Boston 1994). Mining is a known threat to this
fish. Zink Cave, Indiana, was almost completely quarried away, resulting in the extirpation of a
population of this species (Culver and Pipan 2009). The northern cavefish is threatened by
impoundment. The construction of dams on the Green River in Kentucky raised the water level in
Mammoth Cave which increased silt deposition and reduced the input of particulate organic
matter, a major food supply in the aquatic environment (Proudlove 2001). Threats to this species
from habitat loss and degradation are ongoing. The Blue River basin in Indiana and the Kentucky
Karst have been identified as “very endangered” ecosystems by the Karst Waters Institute (in
Proudlove 2001). Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss as a threat to this species.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 93

 Overutilization:
Collection is a documented threat to this species (Keith 1988).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this species. This fish occurs in
Mammoth Cave National Park, which provides some degree of habitat protection but leaves the
fish vulnerable to recreational impacts. Occurrence in a National Park also does not provide
protection from water quality degradation, the primary threat to this species. This fish is listed as
endangered by the state of Indiana, but this designation does not provide substantial protection for
the species' habitat. It is a special concern species in Kentucky.
Indiana and Kentucky both have cave protection laws that prohibit a number of activities in caves,
including dumping or burning in caves and removing, killing, harming, or otherwise disturbing
naturally occurring cave dwelling organisms (IC 35-43-1-3 "The Indiana Cave Protection Law"; Ky.
Acts ch. 168, sec. 7, effective July 15, 1988). These laws do provide some protection for the
northern cavefish. They do not, howerver, prohibit the many activities that occur outside caves, but
severely affect the cave environment, including impoundment, logging, agricuture and other
activities.
Other factors:
The northern cavefish is highly threatened by water pollution. Karst aquifers are unique in that
runoff enters the aquifer with little or no infiltration through sinkholes, springs, and underground
streams. Karst groundwater travels at very high velocities, comparable to surface streams which
can cause re-entrainment of cave sediments. Karst groundwater may also permeate bedrock
features which can act as storage reservoirs, keeping contaminants stagnant for long periods of
time. Due to these features, groundwater found in karst is highly susceptible to contamination
(Webster et al. 2003). This fish is threatened by urban and suburban development and road runoff,
sedimentation from logging, mining, impoundments, and other activities, and alteration of surface
runoff patterns (Keith 1988, Pearson and Boston 1994). Pollution from municipal sewage
treatment plants, confined animal feeding operations, and pesticides from agriculture and lawns
also threaten this species (Keith and Poulson 1981, Aley and Aley 1997). Keith and Poulson
(1981) identified pesticides as the cause of “broken back syndrome” in a population of this fish.
A looming and severe threat to the northern cavefish is a recently discovered disease called "whitenose syndrome," which has decimated bat populations in caves across the Northeast and is rapidly
spreading south and west (see http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/news/443). White-nose syndrome has
already been documented in Tennessee and is expected to reach Kentucky in the near future (Ibid.)
Because bats are a primary source of nutrients to cave ecosystems their loss could have wide
ranging consequences for many if not all other cave residents, including the northern cavefish.

References:
Aley, T., and C. Aley. 1997. Groundwater recharge area delineation, hydrobiological assessment,
and vulnerability mapping of four Ozark cavefish (AMBLYOPSIS ROSAE) populations in
Missouri. A Report to the Missouri Department of Conservation. 115 pp. + app.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 94

 Culver, D.C. and T. Pipan. 2009. The Biology of Caves and Other Subterranean Habitats. Oxford,
University Press.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Keith, J. H. 1988. Distribution of northern cavefish, AMBLYOPSIS SPELAEA DeKay, in
Indiana and Kentucky and recommendations for its protection. Natural Areas J. 8:69-79.
Keith, J. H., and T. L. Poulson. 1981. Broken-back syndrome in Amblyopsis spelaea, DonaldsonTwin Cave, Indiana. Cave Research Foundation 1979 Annual Report. pp. 45-48.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.
Ono, R.D., J.D. Williams, and A. Wagner. 1983. Vanishing Fishes of North America. Stone Wall
Press, Washington, DC. 257 pp
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Pearson, W. D., and C. H. Boston, Jr. 1994. Distribution and status of the northern cavefish,
Amblyopsis spelaea. Final report to Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish
and Wildlife, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Indianapolis.
Poulson, T. L. 1963. Cave adaptation in amblyopsid fishes. American Midland Naturalist 70:257290.
Proudlove, G.S. 2001. The conservation status of hypogean fishes. Environmental Biology of
Fishes 62: 201–213.
Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott.
1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American
Fisheries Society, Special Publishing 20. 183 pp.
Starnes, W. C. 1995. Taxonomic validation for fish species on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Category 2 species list. 28 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003. Region 3 Decision on the Status Recommendation
for the Northern Cavefish (Amblyopsis spelaea).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 95

 Webster, J., D. Ramalingam, and S. Palle. 2003. Evaluation of methods to protect water quality
in karst areas: phase I. Kentucky Transportation Center College of Engineering Reasarch Report
KTC-03-30/SPR237-01-1F.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 96

 Scientific Name:
Amblyscirtes linda
Common Name:
Linda's Roadside-skipper
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Linda's Roadside skipper is endemic to a small area of the lower Midwest, centered in and near
the Ozarks. This butterfly is found in the southern 60 percent or so of Missouri and immediately
adjacent parts of Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Oklahoma (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This butterfly is found only along streams in undisturbed hardwood forests in and near the Ozark
region. Populations are extremely localized and individuals usually stay near the foodplant, Indian
woodoats (Chasmanthium latifolium).
Ecology:
All stages of this species' lifecycle are above ground. Presumably immatures have some
adaptation to withstanding periodic short term flooding (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are an unknown number of occurrences of this species, which is rare and localized within
its very limited range. Most of its range is in the Missouri Ozarks, and the Missouri NHP reports
there is little chance it has over 100 viable metapopulations and a good chance it has fewer than
20.
Population Trends:
Population data are not available for this species. It is expected to decline precipitously due to
escalating gypsy moth eradication efforts.
Status:
This taxon has a very limited range and is rare within it, so much so that its status is unknown. The
Missouri Natural Heritage Program ranks this species as "imperiled?"(S2?), which forms the basis
of its imperiled global rank. It is ranked as imperiled in Tennessee and as S1S3 in Arkansas
(critically imperiled to vulnerable). It is not ranked in other states. NatureServe (2008) states,
"This taxon is not secure, and may be imperiled." Illinois’ Department of Natural Resources rates
it as a Conservation Priority Invertebrate in the state’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Plan. In Kansas it is rated a Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
Habitat destruction:
Because this rare butterfly is a habitat specialist which occurs only in riparian areas of
undisturbed hardwood forests in the Ozarks, it is highly vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation
from logging and fire.
According to Vaughan and Shepherd (2005), A. linda “requires fairly undisturbed stream side
habitat in deciduous forests and its major threats are from forest management operations,
especially logging and spraying… It is likely that with the spread of gypsy moth, Btk spraying will
become a particular threat. There is also concern about the impacts on larvae of pollen drifting
from adjacent fields planted with Bt corn. Because this butterfly occurs in small, isolated

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 97

 populations, it is probably more susceptible to habitat disturbance and fragmentation.”
Other factors:
NatureServe (2008) reportst that this butterfly will probably become highly threatened by gypsy
moth spraying in another 20 or 30 years.
Because of its rarity and limited distribution, it is vulnerable to stochastic events and natural
disturbances. Fires may threaten some occurrences, and floods may also pose a threat to some
populations but many skipper larvae seem to tolerate some flooding (NatureServe 2008).
This butterfly is also threatened by gypsy moth eradication efforts and by drift of Bt pesticides
used in agriculture (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Heitzman, J. Richard and Joan E. Heitzman, 1987. Butterflies and Moths of Missouri. Missouri
Dept. of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 385pp.
Opler, P. A., and A. D. Warren. 2002. Butterflies of North America. 2. Scientific Names List for
Butterfly Species of North America, north of Mexico. C.P Gillette Museum of Arthropod
Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 79 pp.
Opler, P.A. and V. Malikul. 1992. Eastern Butterflies (Peterson Field Guide). Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 396 pp. + color plates.
Scott, J. A. 1986. The Butterflies of North America: A Natural History and Field Guide. Stanford
University Press, Stanford CA. 583 pp.
Vaughan, D. M., and M. D. Shepherd. 2005. Species Profile: Amblyscirtes linda. Available online
at http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/amblyscirtes_linda.pdf. Last accessed
February 16, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 98

 Scientific Name:
Ambystoma barbouri
Common Name:
Streamside Salamander
G Rank:
G4

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The Streamside Salamander occurs in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The
core of this salamander's range occurs in north-central Kentucky, southeastern Indiana, and
southwestern Ohio. Disjunct populations occur in western Kentucky, westernmost West Virginia,
and central Tennessee on the Inner Nashville Basin subregion of the Interior Plateau (Scott et al.
1997, Watson and Pauley 2005, Niemiller et al. 2006, NatureServe 2008). The range of the
species is further described in Kraus and Petranka (1989) and Kraus (1996).
Habitat:
The Streamside Salamander is found in upland forests in close proximity to streams (Conant and
Collins 1998). It occurs in regions of rolling topography, largely in areas with limestone bedrock,
but has also been found in areas with sandstone and shale (Kraus and Petranka 1989). Adult
Streamside Salamanders use underground burrows and above ground cover objects such as rocks,
downed wood, and leafy debris for cover and to stay moist. Breeding occurs most often in first
and second-order streams with limestone substrate. Breeding can also occur in ponds. In one
study, larval abundance was highest in stream pools with filamentous green algae (Cladophora sp.)
which provides both cover from predators and microhabitat for prey (Holomuzki 1989).
Ecology:
In autumn, the Salamander migrates from deciduous forests to breeding streams where the
prolonged breeding season extends from December to April regardless of precipitation (Conant
and Collins 1998). The Streamside Salamander generally breeds in first and second-order streams
with limestone bedrock, and females deposit eggs singly as opposed to similar species which
breed in streams and ditches and lay eggs in clumps (Conant and Collins 1998). Streamside
Salamanders also deposit fewer eggs and larvae are larger than similar species. Eggs are deposited
on the underside of flat rocks, most often in pools but occasionally in runs. The Streamside
Salamander selects breeding sites that reduce exposure of larvae to predatory fish (Kats and Sih
1992). Reproductive success is higher in ephemeral streams with natural barriers to block fish
(Kraus and Petranka 1989).
Populations:
More than 80 sites were mapped of this species by Kraus (1996), but not alll of these may
represent distinct occurrences, and there may be more sites for this species (NatureServe 2008).
Some Ambystoma barbouri populations may have been misidentified as A. texanum (Watson and
Pauley 2005). Total population size is unknown for this salamander. NatureServe (2008)
estimates that adult population likely exceeds 10,000 salamanders.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports the short term trend for this species as declining to stable, and the
long term trend as moderately declining to relatively stable. The species appears to be declining in
Tennessee. Niemiller et al. (2006) found Streamside Salamanders at only four of six known
breeding locations, and at only 5 of 40 surveyed sites in southern Rutherford, northern Bedford,

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 99

 and northeastern Marshall counties (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Streamside Salamander is critically imperiled in West Virginia, imperiled in Tennessee,
vulnerable in Indiana, apparently secure in Kentucky, and unassessed in Ohio (NatureServe 2008).
It has experienced widespread habitat loss and degradation over its relatively small extent of
occurrence (NatureServe 2008). It is categorized as Near Threatened by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
The Streamside Salamander has declined due to the loss of native forests for agriculture and urban
development (Petranka 1998, NatureServe 2008, AmphibiaWeb 2009). This salamander's habitat
in Kentucky is undergoing rapid development (Petranka 1998), and one of the two known
populations in West Virginia was lost due to urbanization (Watson and Pauley 2005). In
Tennessee, what is possibly the last remaining population in the state is imminently threatened by
development (Niemiller et al. 2006). Deforestation is also a threat to this species. Where
surrounding land has been logged, this salamander is usually not detected (Petranka 1984). Dodd
(1997) lists silation as a threat to the Streamside Salamander. The Ohio Division of Wildlife
reports that the Streamside Salamander is threatened by logging, urbanization, pollution of stream
habitats by acid mine drainage, pesticides, and the channelization and scouring of streams
(http://www.ohioamphibians.com/salamanders/Streamside_Salamander.html).
There has been widespread destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of imperiled amphibian
habitats in the Southeast (Vial and Saylor 1993, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994 in LaClaire 1997, p.
314). Dodd (1997) states: “The integrity of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats is important to
amphibian survival, even among species that never venture beyond a single habitat type.
Furthermore, the various life history stages (eggs, larvae, young, adults) may be differentially
susceptible or sensitive to environmental perturbations . . . Although vast areas have been cleared
in the Southeast for agriculture, industry, and urban use, there is virtually no assessment of the
landscape effects of land conversion on amphibian populations. It seems evident, however, that
habitat changes (see papers in Hackney et al. 1992, Boyce and Martin 1993), and with them
changes in aquatic amphibian populations, have been enormous” (p. 177-8).
Habitat loss and degradation obviously negatively affects amphibian populations. LaClaire (1997)
states: “There is a growing body of work documenting (amphibian) population declines on sites
where habitats have been degraded or destroyed (Vickers et al. 1985, Enge and Marion 1986, Ash
1988, Dodd 1991, Raymond and Hardy 1991, Petranka et al. 1993, Phelps and Lancia 1995,
Means et al. 1996). . . Clearly, when the habitat of a given population is destroyed, that population
has gone or will shortly go extinct. Many species may be unable to recolonize areas after local
extinctions, especially when unsuitable habitat exists between the extinct population and extant
populations” (p. 325-326).
Habitat fragmentation can lead to amphibian population extirpation by disrupting metapopulation
dynamics and preventing dispersal and rescue between source and sink habitat. Dodd (1997)
states: “Land use patterns resulting in fragmentation can influence amphibian population genetic
structure . . . if populations become overly fragmented, emigration and immigration may be
inhibited or stopped, thus preventing recolonization from source populations. . . Small isolated
populations are particularly susceptible to environmental perturbations and to stochastic variation
in demography that can lead to extinction even without external perturbations. Isolation by habitat
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 100

 fragmentation thus becomes a threat to the regional persistence of species” (p. 178).
Logging is detrimental for both aquatic and terrestrial amphibian habitat because it eliminates
shade, increases soil and water temperature, alters stream flow, increases sedimentation, reduces
the input of coarse woody debris and organic matter into streams, reduces forest floor litter
(especially if litter is piled and burned), reduces soil moisture, reduces and eliminates burrows
and hiding places, and destroys wetlands. Logging also frequently involves the use of herbicides
which can be detrimental for amphibians (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html).
Logging is known to decrease amphibian abundance and reproductive success (Dodd 1997,
LaClaire 1997). LaClaire (1997) states: “Habitat destruction and degradation resulting from
timbering operations may create problems for long-term survival of imperiled amphibians
(Kramer et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1993)” (p. 327).
Aquatic amphibian populations are threatened by habitat destruction and water pollution from coal
mining activities in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and by
phosphate mining in Florida (Wallace et al. 1992, LaClaire 2007). Dodd (1997) states: “In many
instances, mining occurs directly through small streams or ponds, and mine tailings are pushed
into the larger rivers. . . Mining not only destroys aquatic amphibian habitats outright, it also
results in toxic pollution, decreased pH, and siltation of streams and rivers” (p. 180). Gore (1983)
showed that low pH and high conductivity due to mining negatively affect the distribution of
larval Desmognathus salamanders in streams on the Cumberland Plateau (in Dodd 1997).
Road construction and repair and traffic degrade amphibian habitat. Roads can divide breeding
locations from overwintering sites and increase mortality for migrating adults and dispersing
juveniles, and can disrupt metapopulation dynamics and lead to population isolation, and light and
noise from roads can disrupt breeding and feeding behaviors (Dodd 1997). Dodd (1997) states:
“Transportation corridors, especially roads, can have serious deleterious effects on amphibian
populations (Langton 1989). Road construction can lead to habitat destruction in both terrestrial
and aquatic environments, and can negatively alter breeding habitats through increased siltation.
Increased siltation can lead to increased amphibian mortality because of its own secondary
effects. For example, nearly all aquatic life was eliminated downstream after U.S. HWY 441 was
rebuilt in 1963 in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park” (p. 180).
Overutilization:
Amphibians are collected from the wild for use as food, pets, and for the biological and medicinal
supply markets (AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/exploitation.html). Dodd
(1997) states: “Collecting specimens for the pet trade or biological laboratories probably has had
some impact on local (Southeast) amphibian populations, but few data are available” (p. 183).
Disease or predation:
Petranka (1984) identifies predation as a significant source of mortality for Streamside
Salamander populations. Fish predation may restrict this species to upper portions of breeding
streams (Petranka 1983). Sih et al. (1992) report that of the 30-40 percent of larvae which drifted
into pools with fish, that only 6-8% survived to drift out. Flatworms and water snakes are also
known to prey on Streamside Salamander larvae (Kats 1986, Petranka et al. 1987, Sih and Moore
1993 in AmphibiaWeb 2009). In conjunction with other threats, natural predation could
increasingly threaten this species.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 101

 Native amphibians in the Southeast potentially face predation pressures from introduced species
of fishes and from cattle egrets, armadillos, and wild hogs (Dodd 1997). Amphibian populations
can also be negatively affected by increases in populations of native predators such as raccoons
(Dodd 1997) and corvids (Liebezeit 2002).
New diseases and increased susceptibility of amphibians to existing diseases are known to be
contributing to amphibian population declines (Blaustein et al. 1994, Laurance et al. 1996, Berger
et al. 1998, Daszak 2000, Kiesecker et al. 2001, reviewed in AmphibiaWeb 2009:
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/diseases.html). Stress from factors such as habitat loss and
fragmentation, chemical pollution, climate change, invasion of exotic species, increased UV-B
radiation, and natural population fluctuations may increase the susceptibility of amphibians to
disease (Carey 1993, Dodd 1997, Fellers et al. 2001, Kiesecker at al. 2001, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Pathogens known to cause infectious disease in amphibians include bacterial, fungal, viral,
metazoan, water mold, and trematode agents (Wright and Whitaker 2001 in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), has had severe impacts on
amphibian populations worldwide. Chytrid fungus is known to be present in the southeastern U.S.
(AmphibiaWeb 2009) and it is imperative that equipment be disinfected so that research efforts to
protect species do not inadvertently introduce this fungus or other pathogens to imperiled
amphibian populations.
In addition to disease, there has been a widespread increase of amphibian deformities and
malformations (http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/deformities.html).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that several occurrences of this species are found on small preserves
in Kentucky, but that additional protection is needed (Petranka 1998). There are no existing
regulatory mechanisms to protect this species. The Streamside Salamander does not have state
protection in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, or West Virginia. It is a species of Management Concern in
Tennessee, but this does not provide the Salamander with any tangible protection.
Other factors:
Stochastic weather events pose a threat to the Streamside Salamander. Petranka (1984) reports that
stream drying and flooding are significant mortality sources for this species.
Other factors which may threaten the streamside salamander include water pollution from
acidification, toxins, and endocrine disrupting chemicals, reduced prey availability, climate
change, UV-B radiation, invasive species, and synergistic effects from these and other threats.
Acidification of soils and water bodies is detrimental for amphibians. Acidification of amphibian
habitat can result from acid precipitation and from acid mine drainage. Acid disrupts ion balance in
both terrestrial and aquatic lifestages of amphibians, impairs chemosensory reception, and inhibits
larval feeding (Dodd 1997). Embryos and larvae are particularly sensitive to decreased pH.
Terrestrial salamanders avoid acidified soils. Acidification also has indirect effects which can kill
embryos, larvae, and adults by interfering with egg development, disrupting trophic interactions,
and inducing chronic environmental stress. Low pH also makes amphibians more susceptible to
deleterious effects from heavy metals and increased UV-B radiation (Dodd 1997).
Environmental toxins pose a threat to amphibians in the Southeast due to lethal and sub-lethal
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 102

 effects which can include mortality, decreased growth rate, behavioral and developmental
abnormalities, lowered reproductive success, weakened immunity, and hermaphroditism (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to toxic
substances because of the permeable nature of their skin. A wide range of chemical stressors are
known to negatively affect amphibians including heavy metals, pesticides, phenols, carbon
tetrachloride, nitrogen based fertilizers, and road salt (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009). The
presence of toxins can also make amphibians more susceptible to disease (Dodd 1997).
Amphibians are also threatened by endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment (eg. Hayes
et al. 2006). Dodd (1997) states: “Amphibians are likely to be especially sensitive to the action of
endocrine mimics because they are in close direct contact with chemicals in their environment,
and the amphibian skin and egg capsule are highly permeable. Because hormones normally
function in minute quantities and are vital to normal development, susceptibility to xenobiotics
could be devastating during the complex changes that occur during hormonally-induced amphibian
metamorphosis” (p. 182).
Toxins and other chemicals can also harm amphibians by reducing food availability. Dodd (1997)
states: “If species that are preyed upon by amphibians decline or disappear, amphibian populations
may be expected to follow suit. The use of pesticides and the influence of toxics, pH, and habitat
alteration all may be expected to affect amphibian prey populations” (p. 184).
Climate change poses a threat for amphibians because it will alter rainfall and temperature patterns
and affect soil moisture (Dodd 1997, Field et al. 2007). Amphibians are particularly sensitive to
minute changes in moisture and temperature, and changes in climate can affect breeding behavior,
reproductive success, and immune function (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ClimateChange.html). Amphibians which breed in temporary
ponds or in water bodies that are sensitive to changes in groundwater level are particularly
susceptible to climate change effects. Drought can lead to localized extirpation, which combined
with habitat fragmentation and impaired dispersal, can contribute to extinction (Dodd 1997).
During the past few decades, levels of UV-B radiation in the atmosphere have significantly
increased. For amphibians, UV-B radiation can cause direct mortality as well as sublethal effects
including decreased hatching success, decreased growth rate, developmental abnormalities, and
immune dysfunction (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/UVB.html).
Southeastern amphibians are also threatened by the invasion of non-native species which prey on
or compete with native amphibians. Nonnative fishes can negatively affect amphibian populations
through predation, competition, and disease introduction. Introduced nonnative amphibians such as the
marine toad (Bufo marinus) and Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) are potentially harmful for
native amphibians in the Southeast. Rossi (1981) found that anuran species richness was reduced in an
area where B. marinus was established (in Dodd 1997). Introduced mammals, such as armadillos and
wild hogs, and introduced birds like cattle egrets “may exact a substantial toll on amphibian
populations” (Dodd 1997). Invasive fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also a potential threat for
Southeastern amphibians. Dodd (1997) states: “Ground dwelling vertebrates are especially sensitive to
this ravenous predator, and fire ants have been reported to kill endangered Houston toads (Bufo
houstonensis) as they metamorphose. Fire ants are especially abundant in the moist perimeter

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 103

 surrounding ponds and lakes, and they can float in mats across ponds from vegetation clump to
vegetation clump. Fire ants have few predators and have expanded their range throughout the
Southeast” (p. 183). See: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/IntroSp.html.
Synergisms between multiple threats could contribute to the extinction of Southeast amphibians.
Multiple factors acting together have both lethal and sublethal effects
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/synergisms.html). For example, increased UV-B radiation
increases the susceptibility of amphibians to the effects of contaminants, pathogens and climate
change. Dodd (1997): “The amphibians of this area (the Southeast), and particularly the fully
aquatic species, face a multitude of threats to their long-term existence. These threats generally do
not act independently, but instead act in concert to have potentially serious long-term effects” (p.
185).
References:
AmphibiaWeb. 2009. University of California Berkeley. http://www.amphibiaweb.org
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins.1998. Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern/Central North America,
3rd ed. Peterson Field Guides. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 615 pp.
Dodd, C. K., Jr. 1997. “Imperiled amphibians: a historical perspective.” Aquatic Fauna in Peril:
The Southeastern Perspective, G. W. Benz and D. E. Collins, ed., Special Pub. 1, Southeast
Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA, 165-200.
Hayes, T.B. et al. 2006. Pesticide Mixtures,Endocrine Disruption,and Amphibian Declines:Are
We Underestimating the Impact?. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(1).
Holomuzki, J. R. 1989. Predation risk and macroalga use by the stream-dwelling salamander
AMBYSTOMA TEXANUM. Copeia 1989:22-28.
Kats, L.B. and A. Sih. 1992. Oviposition site selection and avoidance of fish by streamside
salamanders (Ambystoma barbouri). Copeia 1992:468–473.
Kraus, F. 1996. Ambystoma barbouri. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. 621:1-4.
Kraus, F., and J. W. Petranka. 1989. A new sibling species of AMBYSTOMA from the Ohio
River drainage. Copeia 1989:94-110.
LaClaire, L. V. 1997. Amphibians in peril: resource management in the southeast. Pages.
307–338. in G. W. Benz, D. E. Collins, editors. Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern
perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur,
Georgia, USA.
Liebezeit, J.R. 2002. A summary of predation by Corvids on threatened and endangered species
in California and management recommendations to reduce corvid predation.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 104

 Niemiller, M. L., B. M. Glorioso, C. Nicholas, J. Phillips, J. Rader, E. Reed, K. L. Sykes, J.
Todd, G. R. Wyckoff, E. L. Young, B. T. Miller. 2006. Status and distribution of the streamside
salamander, Ambystoma barbouri, in middle Tennessee. American Midland Naturalist 156:394399.
Ohio Division of Wildlife. 2009. Streamside Salamander.
http://www.ohioamphibians.com/salamanders/Streamside_Salamander.html
Petranka, J. W. 1983. Fish predation; a factor affecting the spatial distribution of a streambreeding salamander. Copeia 1983:624-628.
Petranka, J. W. 1984. Breeding migrations, breeding season, clutch size, and oviposition of
stream-breeding AMBYSTOMA TEXANUM. J. Herpetol. 18:106-112.
Petranka, J. W. 1984. Incubation, larval growth, and embryonic and larval survivorship of
smallmouth salamanders (AMBYSTOMA TEXANUM) in streams. Copeia 1984:862-868.
Petranka, J.W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C.
Scott, A. F., B. T. Miller, M. Brown, and J. W. Petranka. 1997. Geographic distribution:
AMBYSTOMA BARBOURI. Herpetological Review 28:155.
Sih, A., L.B. Kats and R.D. Moore. 1992. Effects of predatory sunfish on the density, drift, and
refuge use of stream salamander larvae. Ecology 73:1418–1430.
Watson, M. B., and T. K. Pauley. 2005. Ambystoma barbouri Kraus and Petranka, 1989.
Streamside salamander. Pages 603-605 in M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the
conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 105

 Scientific Name:
Ammodramus maritimus macgillivraii
Common Name:
MacGillivray’s Seaside Sparrow
G Rank:
T2
Range:
This subspecies is patchily distributed within a narrow coastal fringe on the Atlantic coast from
Dare County in northeastern North Carolina south to Duval County in northeastern Florida
(NatureServe 2008). Ammodramus maritimus macgillivraii (Audubon, 1834) includes A. m.
waynei (Oberholser, 1931), A. m. pelonotus (Oberholser, 1931), and A. m. shannoni (Bailey,
1931) (Post et al. 2009). This subspecies no longer occurs in the southern extent of its historical
range, and now ranges only south to the St. John's River (Kale 1983).
Habitat:
The seaside sparrow is a habitat specialist of salt and brackish marshes that generally requires nest
sites above spring tides, and openings in vegetation such as pools and creek edges, so that the
birds can forage on open mud and at the bases of rooted vegetation (Post et al. 2009). Optimum
habitats for this species contain contiguous nesting and feeding areas (Post et al. 2009).
MacGillivray's seaside sparrow uses extensive stands of Spartina and/or Juncus. Some birds will
nest behind the marsh or up tidal rivers when tidal amplitude is high (Sprunt 1927, Tomkins 1941,
Post and Greenlaw 1994).
Populations:
The number of populations of MacGillivray's seaside sparrow is unknown. Based on a very crude
estimate made using 1:250,000 scale map series of the Atlantic Coast Ecological Inventory (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1980), there are sixteen estimated elemental occurrences between Dare
County, North Carolina, and Duval County, Florida. Total population size is also unknown. The
distribution of this subspecies is limited by tidal extremes and abundance of predatory rice rats
(Post and Greenlaw 1994). The Florida population is estimated at 750-1,000 pairs (McDonald
1988, Kale 1996).
Population Trends:
Population trend information is unavailable for this subspecies. Breeding Bird Survey data
indicate that the seaside sparrow species as a whole is stable to increasing, but these data are
based on a limited number of routes and do not cover the range of the macgillivray subspecies
(Post and Greenlaw 1994, Post et al. 2009). It is known that this subspecies has been extirpated
from the southernmost portion of its range. MacGillivray’s seaside sparrow once ranged into
Volusia County, but now occurs only as far south as Duval County (Kale 1983).
Status:
This habitat specialist is patchily distributed within a narrow stretch of southeastern Atlantic
coastline, and its distribution is limited by tidal extremes and predation. Populations south of the
St. John's River have been extirpated. NatureServe (2008) ranks the subspecies as imperiled in
Florida (T2S2). The seaside sparrow species as a whole is designated as a high priority landbird by
South Carolina Partners in Flight and South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative. It does not have
protective status in any state.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 106

 Habitat destruction:
MacGillivray’s seaside sparrow is a habitat specialist that needs extensive areas to survive and is thus
particularly vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation. Loss of coastal wetlands is ongoing due to
development and other factors. Wetland loss in the U.S. coastal zone has accelerated about 0.5 percent
percent annually since the mid-1950s, and Florida is one of the states where tidal
wetland loss has been greatest (Post et al. 2009). NatureServe (2008) reports that occurrences of
this subspecies have been destroyed and degraded by development of marshes, development of
adjacent uplands, bridge building, and invasion of marsh land by woody vegetation. Kale (1996)
reports that this subspecies is threatened by invasion of tidal marshes by woody vegetation and by
management activities which artificially prolong the impoundment of marshes for waterfowl or
mariculture.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2005) reports that the sparrow’s salt
marsh habitat is very highly threatened by fragmentation, coastal development, and sedimentation,
and highly threatened by the construction of roads, bridges and causeways, incompatible industrial
operations, dam operations and the incompatible release of water, climate variability, inadequate
stormwater management, surface water withdrawal, channel modification, and incompatible
wildlife and fisheries management strategies.
In the 1970’s, this subspecies disappeared from seemingly suitable habitat south of the St. Johns
River (Kale 1983, Kale 1996). It is hypothesized that invasion of the marsh habitat by mangroves
and DDT spraying for mosquito control contributed to the extirpation (Enge et al. 2003).
Disease or predation:
Predation is a primary threat to MacGillivray’s seaside sparrow, and rice rat nest predation
presumably limits the distribution of this subspecies (Post and Greenlaw 1994). The main known
cause of nest failure in north Florida is assumed to be predation by rice rats, which accounted for
28 percent of losses in a field study (Post 1981). Fish crows also predate on seaside sparrow
nests, and were responsible for 12 percent of losses in the 1981 study (Post 1981).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which adequately protect MacGillivray’s seaside
sparrow or its habitat. NatureServe (2008) states that it is unknown whether any occurrences are
appropriately protected, and that extensive tracts of habitat are necessary to protect this bird. The
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (2001) reports that Nassau County, where the major portion of the
population resides, has very little marsh under state or federal ownership. Audubon (2002) reports
that Duval and Nassau tidal marshes support virtually the entire Florida population of
MacGillivray’s seaside sparrow, but that the Nassau marshes are mostly unprotected. Root and
Barnes (2006) report that 46 percent of the sparrow’s potential habitat is in public ownership.
There are no existing requlatory mechanisms which adequately protect this subspecies.
Other factors:
MacGillivray’s seaside sparrow is threatened by several other factors including hurricanes, global
climate change, human disturbance, pollution, unknown factors, and population sensitivity to adult
survivorship.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 107

 Seaside sparrows are vulnerable to local extirpation by hurricanes or other severe storms that
cause tides to inundate all the marsh vegetation (Enge et al. 2003). The hurricane of August 1992
is estimated to have reduced the Mirabilis subspecies of seaside sparrow from 6,000 to 4,000
individuals (Pimm et al. 1994). Global climate change is expected to increase both the frequency
and intensity of hurricanes on the Atlantic coast (Karl et al. 2009). In addition, this subspecies is
threatened by projected sea-level rise due to climate change (Audubon 2002). During the next
century, a predicted sea-level rise of 2-4 plus millimeters per year, in conjunction with increased
storm frequency, will accelerate loss of tidal marshes (Erwin et al. 2006). Climate change is also
expected to favor the invasion of salt marshes by mangroves, which can make the habitat unsuitable
for use by seaside sparrow (Kale 1983, Enge et al. 2003). Long-term changes in sparrow
productivity resulting from succession can be expected even in protected tidal wetlands (Enge et
al. 2003). High marshes provide only marginal sparrow habitat (Reinert et al. 1981).
Pollution, such as oil spills, also threatens this subspecies (NatureServe 2008). It is hypothesized
that DDT spraying contributed to the extirpation of this subspecies south of the St. Johns River
(Enge et al. 2003).
Root and Barnes (2006) developed population models for this subspecies and found adult
survivorship to be the most influential parameter on population growth, with a 5 percent reduction
in fecundity resulting in a 50 percent decline in abundance.
Unknown factors may be responsible for inexplicable absences in seemingly suitable habitat (Kale
1983, Kale 1996, NatureServe 2008).
The Florida marshes which support this subspecies are also threatened by human disturbance
(Audubon 2002).
References:
American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1957. The A.O.U. Check-list of North American Birds,
5th ed. Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore, MD. 691 pp.
Audubon. 2002. The Important Bird Areas of Florida: Northern Peninsula. Accessed Feb. 23,
2010 at: www.audubon.org/bird/iba/florida/northern_peninsula.pdf
Enge, K. M., B. A. Millsap, T. J. Doonan, J. A. Gore, N. J. Douglass, and G. L. Sprandel. 2003.
Conservation plans for biotic regions in Florida containing multiple rare or declining wildlife
taxa. Final Report. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida,
USA.
Erwin, R. M., G. M. Sanders, D. J. Prosser, and D. R. Cahoon. 2006. High tides and rising seas:
Potential effects on estuarine waterbirds. Studies in Avian Biology 32:214-228.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative.
Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Kale II, H. W. 1983. Distribution, habitat, and status of breeding Seaside Sparrows in Florida.
Pages 41-48 in The Seaside Sparrow, its biology and management. (Quay, T. L., J. B. Funderburg,
Jr., D. S. Lee, E. F. Potter, and C. S. Robbins, Eds.) Occas. Pap. North Carolina Biol. Surv.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 108

 Raleigh, NC.
Kale, H. W., II. 1996. Seaside Sparrows. Pp. 608-615 in Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
Vol. V: Birds (J. A. Rodgers, Jr., H. W. Kale II, and H. T. Smith eds.). Univ. Press of Florida.
Gainesville, Florida.
Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the
United States. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press. Accessed
Feb. 15, 2010 at: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/usimpacts/regional-climate-change-impacts/southeast
McDonald, M. V. 1988. Status survey of two Florida seaside sparrows and taxonomic review of
the seaside sparrow assemblage. Florida Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Sch. For. Res.
and Conservation, Univ. of Florida. Technical Report Number 32, 160 pp.
Pimm, S. L., G. E. Davis, L. Loope, C. T. Roman, T. J. Smith, and J. T. Tilmant. 1994. Hurricane
Andrew. Bioscience 44(4):224-229.
Post, W. 1981a. The influence of rice rats Oryzomys palustris on the habitat use of the Seaside
Sparrow Ammospiza maritima. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 9:35-40.
Post, W., and J. S. Greenlaw. 1994. Seaside Sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus). In the Birds of
North America, No. 127 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural
Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.
Post, William, W. Post and J. S. Greenlaw. 2009. Seaside Sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus),
The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;
Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/127
Reinert, S. E., F. C. Golet, and W. R. DeRagon. 1981. Avian use of ditched and unditched salt
marshes in southeastern New England: a preliminary report. Trans. Northeastern Mosquito
Control Assoc. 27:1-23.
Root, K.V. and J. Barnes. 2006. Risk Assessment for a Focal Set of Rare and Imperiled Wildlife
in Florida. FWC Contract No. 03111 Final Report.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 109

 Scientific Name:
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana
Common Name:
Georgia Leadplant
G Rank:
T2
Range:
Also known as the Georgia indigo bush, this species was historically documented from the Inner
and Middle Coastal Plain of North Carolina, the South Carolina Sandhilll region, and the Altamaha
Grit region of Georgia, but is now thought to be restricted to North Carolina because no
occurrences have been confirmed in other states since the mid-20th century (NatureServe 2008,
SCHT 1993). In North Carolina, natural heritage records indicate the species is present in
Cumberland, Harnett, Hoke, Lee, and Moore Counties, and possibly in Pender, Richmond,
Robeson, and Scotland Counties (TNC 1991-1993, NCNHP 1993, NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant occurs primarily on pine, shrub, and wiregrass (Aristida stricta) terraces along rivers
and/or large streams, and also in low flatwoods, creek swamps, and low pastures (NatureServe
2008, NCU 1992-93). Almost all currently known occurrences are found along the Little River
in Fort Bragg, NC, close to the annual high water mark; this species usually occurs at or near the
ecotone between flood-prone banks and mesic terrace habitat above. Dominant co-occurring tree
species are loblolly (Pinus taeda) and longleaf pine (P. palustris) and various oak species (e.g.,
Quercus marilandica, Q. falcata, Q. incana, Q. stellata, and Q. nigra). The shrub layer may vary
from dense to sparse, and is commonly composed of summersweet (Clethra alnifolia),
huckleberries (Gaylussacia spp.), and Rhododendron species (NatureServe 2008). This plant
favors clearings, such as small gaps created by treefall, selective cutting, flooding, or fire.
Ecology:
The leadplant is a perennial, clonal shrub (NatureServe 2008)
Populations:
There are currently 17 known occurrences of Georgia leadplant, all in North Carolina. Global
population size is unknown and is difficult to estimate given the clonal pattern of spread exhibited
by this species (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
This species is in decline, and occurrences are no longer known in two states where the species
was formerly present (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This plant is rare and declining throughout its range; only 17 known occurrences remain. Is
restricted to sensitive habitat threatened by numerous factors. NatureServe (2008) ranks the
Georgia leadplant as critically imperiled in Georgia and South Carolina, and imperiled in North
Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
Threats to the Georgia leadplant include damming and diversion of rivers or other water bodies
and correspondent changes in local hydrology, conversion of upland terraces to agricultural or
silvicultural uses, fire suppression, and, particular to populations on Fort Bragg, the effects of military
training activities (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 110

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Georgia leadplant or its habitat; though
it is listed as a species of special concern in South Carolina, this designation offers it no
substantial regulatory protection.
References:
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 3, 2009.
NCU. 1993. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill herbarium collections. Data compiled by
B.A. Sorrie, Sandhills Field Office, Southern Pines, NC.
Sandhills Field Office. 1991-93. The Nature Conservancy's Rare and Endangered Plant Survey
for Fort Bragg and Camp MacKall. Contract #M67004-91-D-0010. Personal observations of
staff, Southern Pines.
The Nature Conservancy. 1993. Rare and endangered plant survey and natural area inventory of
Fort Bragg and Camp MacKall military reservations, North Carolina. Final report by The Nature
Conservancy, Sandhills Field Office, December 1993.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of the rare plant species of
North Carolina. Draft North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of the watch list plant
species. Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Dept. Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 111

 Scientific Name:
Amphinemura mockfordi
Common Name:
Tennessee Forestfly
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This stonefly is known from Grundy Co., Tennessee, on the Cumberland Plateau, and more
recently from Madison Co., Alabama (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Nelson (1997) describes the habitat of A. mockfordi as "small headwater streams or seeps of the
Cumberland Plateau."
Populations:
This species is known from two counties. Population data are not available.
Population Trends:
Morse et al. (1993) believe A. mockfordi may be extirpated.
Status:
NatureServe ranks this stonefly as imperiled in Tennessee and not rated in Alabama.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) states that this species' habitat in Tennessee is "greatly impacted by poor
landscape management practices," which likely includes threats from logging, agriculture, and
potentially coal mining.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Morse, J.C., B.P. Stark, and W.P. McCafferty. 1993. Southern Appalachian streams at risk:
Implications for mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, and other aquatic biota.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 3:293–303.
Nelson, Charles H., 1997. Descriptions of the female, nymph, egg and redescription of the male
of AMPHINEMURA MOCKFORDI. Entomological News v.108 No. 2 pp107-112.
Stark, B.P. 1996. Last updated 16 February 2001. North American Stonefly List. Online.
Available: http://www.mc.edu/campus/users/stark/Sfly0102.htm.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 112

 Scientific Name:
Amphiuma pholeter
Common Name:
One-toed Amphiuma
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The One-toed Amphiuma occurs on the lower Gulf Coastal Plain of Florida, Alabama, Georgia,
and southeastern Mississippi in a narrow area from Jackson County, Mississippi, to Levy and
Hernando counties, Florida, in an area 80-120 km inland from the seashore (Means 1996, 2005,
Floyd et al. 1998). In Georgia, there are two known locations in the Ochlockonee River drainage
(Means 1996). There are also two known locations in Alabama, and approximately 40 known
locations in Florida (Means 2005, NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
AmphibiaWeb (2009) provides the following description of One-Toed Amphiuma habitat: "Means
(1977) analyzed the habitat qualities of 13 localities of one-toed amphiumas and found that
individuals are primarily found in deep, liquid, amorphous mucks derived from hardwood and
cypress litter. The most important habitat variables associated with one-toed amphiumas are (1)
streams of low–moderate gradient; (2) swampy and periodically inundated floodplains; (3) mixed
bottomland hardwoods and cypress; (4) seepage; and (5) vulnerability to drought. Muck, as
compared with peat, is usually liquid, and decomposition of the organic material in it has
progressed so far that it is relatively amorphous, not having large pieces of wood and leaf litter.
Amphiumas cannot locomote through fibrous peat and are rarely found in shallow muck deposits
of < 15 cm (6 in) deep (personal observations), presumably because it increases their
vulnerability to predators such as raccoons" (http://www.amphibiaweb.org).
Ecology:
Conant and Collins (1998) describe the One-Toed Amphiuma as "a secretive salamander of muckbottomed stream floodplains and other mucky habitats where it feeds on insects and other
invertebrates" (p. 426). Embyros and hatchlings of this species have not been detected, but it is
possible that brooding females coil around eggs during development (Means 1996, AmphibiaWeb
2009). Amphiuma species are obligate neotenes and hatchlings likely have thin, feathery gills and
a brief larval period before metamorphosing into air-breathing juveniles (AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Amphiumas might undergo seasonal migrations. AmphibiaWeb (2009) states: "Means (2001a)
noted that in winter, one-toed amphiumas were occasionally found under large logs buried along
stream courses in first-order stream valleys where the species is not found in the spring, summer,
or fall. Means (2001a) speculated that some individuals migrated upstream into seepage heads of
first-order valleys to find protection from cold weather in warm seeps."
One-toed Amphiumas consume small invertebrates including the follwing organsims reported
from stomach content analyses (Means 2001a in AmphibiaWeb 2009): sphaeriid clams, physellid
snails, aquatic earthworms (Sparganophilus spp.), asellid isopods, the larvae of mayflies, tipulid
flies, chironomid midges, culicid mosquitoes, stoneflies, megalopterans, tabanid flies, adults and
larvae of small aquatic beetles, planarians, and occasional terrestrial beetles and lepidopteran
larvae that drop onto the surface of the muck. Amphiumas are potentially eaten by reptiles and
other amphibians including common snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina), mud turtles (Kinosternon

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 113

 subrubrum), mud snakes (Farancia abacura), red-bellied water snakes (Nerodia
erythrogaster), brown water snakes (N. taxispilota), queen snakes (Regina septemvittata), ringnecked snakes (Diadophis punctatus), cottonmouths (Agkistrodon piscivorus), two-toed
amphiumas, southern leopard frogs (Rana sphenocephala), and bronze frogs (R. clamitans; Means,
2001a) (in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are from 21-80 populations of One-Toed Amphiuma.
Because of the difficulty of sampling and the cryptic nature of this species, total population size
is unknown. Means (2005) reports that at most sites, only one to two individuals are detected in
several person hours of rigorous searching.
Population Trends:
Current information on One-Toed Amphiuma population trend is inadequate. The species is
thought to be declining to stable in the short term and moderately declining to relatively stable in
the long term (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The One-Toed Amphiuma is critically imperiled (S1) in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi, and
vulnerable (S3) in Florida (NatureServe 2008). It is classified as Near Threatened by the IUCN. It
is a Tier 1 species of greatest conservation need in Mississippi. It is a Priority 2 species of
greatest conservation need in Alabama. It is a designated Rare species in Georgia.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the habitat of the One-toed Amphiuma is subject to several
potential threats including stream pollution, ground water disturbance, logging, mining, power
plant sludge, and runoff, and emphasizes that this amphibian is very habitat-dependent and the
maintenance of nonpolluted muck is essential for its conservation. Enge (2005) cites logging,
groundwater use, siltation from dirt roads and cleared lands, impoundment, and poor management
of adjacent upland habitat as threats to amphibian species in ravine habitats in the Florida
Panhandle, including A. pholeter. The State of Georgia reports that the one-toed amphiuma is
threatened by agricultural activity and associated herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers, by habitat
loss due to alteration of stream hydrology for both drainage and impoundment, and by siltation
from various types of development
(http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/amphiuma_pholeter.pdf). The State
of Mississippi reports that the amphiuma's habitat is highly threatened by altered fire regime,
withdrawal of surface and groundwaters, logging, and development
(http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Type%208.pdf).
There has been widespread destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of imperiled amphibian
habitats in the Southeast (Vial and Saylor 1993, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994 in LaClaire 1997, p.
314). Vast acreages of wetlands have been destroyed or altered in the Southeast (Dodd 1997).
Aquatic amphibian habitats in the Mobile River Basin have been severely degraded by
impoundment, channelization, dredging, mining for coal, sand, and gravel, discharge from
industrial and municipal sources, and nonpoint discharge and run-off (LaClaire 1997, p. 329).
Dodd (1997) states: “The integrity of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats is important to
amphibian survival, even among species that never venture beyond a single habitat type.
Furthermore, the various life history stages (eggs, larvae, young, adults) may be differentially
susceptible or sensitive to environmental perturbations . . . Although vast areas have been cleared

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 114

 in the Southeast for agriculture, industry, and urban use, there is virtually no assessment of the
landscape effects of land conversion on amphibian populations. It seems evident, however, that
habitat changes (see papers in Hackney et al. 1992, Boyce and Martin 1993), and with them
changes in aquatic amphibian populations, have been enormous” (p. 177-8).
Habitat loss and degradation obviously negatively affects amphibian populations. LaClaire (1997)
states: “There is a growing body of work documenting (amphibian) population declines on sites
where habitats have been degraded or destroyed (Vickers et al. 1985, Enge and Marion 1986, Ash
1988, Dodd 1991, Raymond and Hardy 1991, Petranka et al. 1993, Phelps and Lancia 1995,
Means et al. 1996). . . Clearly, when the habitat of a given population is destroyed, that population
has gone or will shortly go extinct. Many species may be unable to recolonize areas after local
extinctions, especially when unsuitable habitat exists between the extinct population and extant
populations” (p. 325-326).
Habitat fragmentation can lead to amphibian population extirpation by disrupting metapopulation
dynamics and preventing dispersal and rescue between source and sink habitat. Dodd (1997)
states: “Land use patterns resulting in fragmentation can influence amphibian population genetic
structure . . . if populations become overly fragmented, emigration and immigration may be
inhibited or stopped, thus preventing recolonization from source populations. . . Small isolated
populations are particularly susceptible to environmental perturbations and to stochastic variation
in demography that can lead to extinction even without external perturbations. Isolation by habitat
fragmentation thus becomes a threat to the regional persistence of species” (p. 178).
Logging is detrimental for both aquatic and terrestrial amphibian habitat because it eliminates
shade, increases soil and water temperature, alters stream flow, increases sedimentation, reduces
the input of coarse woody debris and organic matter into streams, reduces forest floor litter
(especially if litter is piled and burned), reduces soil moisture, reduces and eliminates burrows
and hiding places, and destroys wetlands. Logging also frequently involves the use of herbicides
which can be detrimental for amphibians (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html).
Logging is known to decrease amphibian abundance and reproductive success (Dodd 1997,
LaClaire 1997). LaClaire (1997) states: “Habitat destruction and degradation resulting from
timbering operations may create problems for long-term survival of imperiled amphibians
(Kramer et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1993)” (p. 327).
Aquatic amphibian populations are threatened by habitat destruction and water pollution from coal
mining activities in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and by
phosphate mining in Florida (Wallace et al. 1992, LaClaire 2007). Dodd (1997) states: “In many
instances, mining occurs directly through small streams or ponds, and mine tailings are pushed
into the larger rivers. . . Mining not only destroys aquatic amphibian habitats outright, it also
results in toxic pollution, decreased pH, and siltation of streams and rivers” (p. 180). Gore (1983)
showed that low pH and high conductivity due to mining negatively affect the distribution of
larval Desmognathus salamanders in streams on the Cumberland Plateau (in Dodd 1997).
Road construction and repair and traffic degrade amphibian habitat. Roads can divide breeding
locations from overwintering sites and increase mortality for migrating adults and dispersing
juveniles, and can disrupt metapopulation dynamics and lead to population isolation, and light and
noise from roads can disrupt breeding and feeding behaviors (Dodd 1997). Dodd (1997) states:

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 115

 “Transportation corridors, especially roads, can have serious deleterious effects on amphibian
populations (Langton 1989). Road construction can lead to habitat destruction in both terrestrial
and aquatic environments, and can negatively alter breeding habitats through increased siltation.
Increased siltation can lead to increased amphibian mortality because of its own secondary
effects. For example, nearly all aquatic life was eliminated downstream after U.S. HWY 441 was
rebuilt in 1963 in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park” (p. 180).
Overutilization:
Because of its rarity, overcollection by herpetological enthusiasts is a potential threat to the Onetoed Amphiuma. Amphibians are collected from the wild for use as food, pets, and for the
biological and medicinal supply markets (AmphibiaWeb 2009:
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/exploitation.html). Dodd (1997) states: “Collecting specimens
for the pet trade or biological laboratories probably has had some impact on local (Southeast)
amphibian populations, but few data are available” (p. 183).
Disease or predation:
The State of Georgia reports that the one-toed amphiuma is threatened by predation and indirect
mortality from feral hogs
(http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/amphiuma_pholeter.pdf)
New diseases and increased susceptibility of amphibians to existing diseases are known to be
contributing to the decline of amphibian species (Blaustein et al. 1994, Laurance et al. 1996,
Berger et al. 1998, Daszak 2000, Kiesecker et al. 2001, see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/diseases.html). Stress from factors such as habitat loss and
fragmentation, chemical pollution, climate change, invasion of exotic species, increased UV-B
radiation, and natural population fluctuations may increase the susceptibility of amphibians to
disease (Carey 1993, Dodd 1997, Fellers et al. 2001, Kiesecker at al. 2001, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Pathogens known to cause infectious disease in amphibians include bacterial, fungal, viral,
metazoan, water mold, and trematode agents (Wright and Whitaker 2001 in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), has had severe impacts on
amphibian populations worldwide. Chytrid fungus is known to be present in the southeastern U.S.
(AmphibiaWeb 2009). In addition to disease, there has been a widespread increase of amphibian
deformities and malformations (http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/deformities.html).
Native amphibians in the Southeast potentially face predation pressures from introduced species
of fishes and from cattle egrets, armadillos, and wild hogs (Dodd 1997). Amphibian populations
can also be negatively affected by increases in populations of native predators such as raccoons
(Dodd 1997) and corvids (Liebezeit 2002). Enge (2005) cites feral hogs as a threat to amphibians
in the Florida Panhandle including the one-toed amphiuma.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect this species. It is a Tier 1
species of greatest conservation need in Mississippi, meaning it is classified as being in need of
immediate conservation action and/or research because of extreme rarity, restricted distribution,
unknown or decreasing population trends, specialized habitat needs and/or habitat vulnerability. It
is a Priority 2 species of greatest conservation need in Alabama. It is a designated Rare species in
Georgia. These state designations do not afford the Amphiuma any regulatory protection.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 116

 NatureServe (2008) reports that the Amphiuma occurs on several managed state and federal areas,
and that the westernmost occurrence in Mississippi is on protected land. NatureServe (2008)
provides the following management recommendations: "Entire drainage basins (including uplands)
need to be preserved. Protect occurrences in at least 10 different drainages, preferably including at
least one occurrence each in Georgia and Alabama. Establish state limits on collecting if
exploitation is extensive."
Other factors:
Other factors which may threaten the amphiuma include water pollution from acidification, toxins,
and endocrine disrupting chemicals, reduced prey availability, climate change, UV-B radiation,
invasive species, and synergistic effects from these and other threats. Enge (2005) cites water
pollution, recreation, and trash dumping as threats to the one-toed amphiuma and other amphibians
in the Florida Panhandle.
Acidification of soils and water bodies is detrimental for amphibians. Acidification of amphibian
habitat can result from acid precipitation and from acid mine drainage. Acid disrupts ion balance in
both terrestrial and aquatic lifestages of amphibians, impairs chemosensory reception, and inhibits
larval feeding (Dodd 1997). Embryos and larvae are particularly sensitive to decreased pH.
Terrestrial salamanders avoid acidified soils. Acidification also has indirect effects which can kill
embryos, larvae, and adults by interfering with egg development, disrupting trophic interactions,
and inducing chronic environmental stress. Low pH also makes amphibians more susceptible to
deleterious effects from heavy metals and increased UV-B radiation (Dodd 1997).
Environmental toxins pose a threat to amphibians in the Southeast due to lethal and sub-lethal
effects which can include mortality, decreased growth rate, behavioral and developmental
abnormalities, lowered reproductive success, weakened immunity, and hermaphroditism (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to toxic
substances because of the permeable nature of their skin. A wide range of chemical stressors are
known to negatively affect amphibians including heavy metals, pesticides, phenols, carbon
tetrachloride, nitrogen based fertilizers, and road salt (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009). The
presence of toxins can also make amphibians more susceptible to disease (Dodd 1997).
Amphibians are also threatened by endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment (eg. Hayes
et al. 2006). Dodd (1997) states: “Amphibians are likely to be especially sensitive to the action of
endocrine mimics because they are in close direct contact with chemicals in their environment,
and the amphibian skin and egg capsule are highly permeable. Because hormones normally
function in minute quantities and are vital to normal development, susceptibility to xenobiotics
could be devastating during the complex changes that occur during hormonally-induced amphibian
metamorphosis” (p. 182).
Toxins and other chemicals can also harm amphibians by reducing food availability. Dodd (1997)
states: “If species that are preyed upon by amphibians decline or disappear, amphibian populations
may be expected to follow suit. The use of pesticides and the influence of toxics, pH, and habitat
alteration all may be expected to affect amphibian prey populations” (p. 184).
Climate change poses a threat for amphibians because it will alter rainfall and temperature patterns
and affect soil moisture (Dodd 1997, Field et al. 2007). Amphibians are particularly sensitive to
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 117

 minute changes in moisture and temperature, and changes in climate can affect breeding behavior,
reproductive success, and immune function (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ClimateChange.html). Amphibians which breed in temporary
ponds or in water bodies that are sensitive to changes in groundwater level are particularly
susceptible to climate change effects. Drought can lead to localized extirpation, which combined
with habitat fragmentation and impaired dispersal, can contribute to extinction (Dodd 1997).
During the past few decades, levels of UV-B radiation in the atmosphere have significantly
increased. For amphibians, UV-B radiation can cause direct mortality as well as sublethal effects
including decreased hatching success, decreased growth rate, developmental abnormalities, and
immune dysfunction (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/UVB.html).
Southeastern amphibians are also threatened by the invasion of non-native species which prey on
or compete with native amphibians. Nonnative fishes can negatively affect amphibian populations
through predation, competition, and disease introduction. Introduced nonnative amphibians such as the
marine toad (Bufo marinus) and Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) are potentially harmful for
native amphibians in the Southeast. Rossi (1981) found that anuran species richness was reduced in an
area where B. marinus was established (in Dodd 1997). Introduced mammals, such as armadillos and
wild hogs, and introduced birds like cattle egrets “may exact a substantial toll on amphibian
populations” (Dodd 1997). Invasive fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also a potential threat for
Southeastern amphibians. Dodd (1997) states: “Ground dwelling vertebrates are especially sensitive to
this ravenous predator, and fire ants have been reported to kill endangered Houston toads (Bufo
houstonensis) as they metamorphose. Fire ants are especially abundant in the moist perimeter
surrounding ponds and lakes, and they can float in mats across ponds from vegetation clump to
vegetation clump. Fire ants have few predators and have expanded their range throughout the
Southeast” (p. 183). See: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/IntroSp.html.
Synergisms between multiple threats could contribute to the extinction of Southeast amphibians.
Multiple factors acting together have both lethal and sublethal effects
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/synergisms.html). For example, increased UV-B radiation
increases the susceptibility of amphibians to the effects of contaminants, pathogens and climate
change. Dodd (1997): “The amphibians of this area (the Southeast), and particularly the fully
aquatic species, face a multitude of threats to their long-term existence. These threats generally do
not act independently, but instead act in concert to have potentially serious long-term effects” (p.
185).
References:
AmphibiaWeb. 2009. University of California Berkeley. http://www.amphibiaweb.org

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 118

 Berger, L., Speare, R., Daszak, P., Green, D. E., Cunningham, A. A., Goggin, C. L., Slocombe, R.,
Ragan, M. A., Hyatt, A. D., McDonald, K. R., Hines, H. B., Lips, K. R., Marantelli, G., and Parkes,
H. 1998. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in
the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 95: 9031-9036.
Blaustein, A. R., Hoffman, P. D., Hokit, D. G., Kiesecker, J. M., Walls, S. C., and Hays, J. B.
1994. UV repair and resistance to solar UV-B in amphibian eggs: A link to population declines?
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 91: 17911795.
Blaustein, A. R., Hokit, D. G., O'Hara, R. K., and Holt, R. A. 1994. Pathogenic fungus contributes
to amphibian losses in the Pacific Northwest. Biological Conservation 67: 251-254.
Carey, C. 1993. Hypothesis concerning the causes of the disappearance of boreal toads from the
mountains of Colorado. Conservation Biology 7: 355-362.
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins.1998. Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern/Central North America,
3rd ed. Peterson Field Guides. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 615 pp.
Daszak, P., Cunningham, A. A., and Hyatt, A. D. 2000. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife:
threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 287: 443-449.
Dodd, C. K., Jr. 1997. “Imperiled amphibians: a historical perspective.” Aquatic Fauna in Peril:
The Southeastern Perspective, G. W. Benz and D. E. Collins, ed., Special Pub. 1, Southeast
Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA, 165-200.
Enge, K.M. 2005. Herpetofaunal drift-fence surveys of steephead ravines in the Florida
Panhandle. Southeastern Naturalist 4(4):657-678.
Fellers, G. M., Green, D. E., and Longcore, J. E. 2001. Oral chytridiomycosis in the mountain
yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa). Copeia 2001: 945-953.
Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running and
M.J. Scott. 2007. North America Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E.
Hanson, Eds., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
http://www.ipccinfo.com/wg2report_north_america.php
Floyd, P. S., Sr., P. S. Floyd, Jr., and J. D. Floyd. 1998. Geographic distribution: Amphiuma
pholeter (one-toed amphiuma). Herpetological Review 29:244.
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources. 2009. Amphiuma pholeter.
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/amphiuma_pholeter.pdf.
Kiesecker, J. M., A. R. Blaustein, and C. L. Miller. 2001. Transfer of a pathogen from fish to
amphibians. Conservation Biology 15:1064-1070.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 119

 LaClaire, L. V. 1997. Amphibians in peril: resource management in the southeast. Pages.
307–338. in G. W. Benz, D. E. Collins, editors. Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern
perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur,
Georgia, USA.
Laurance, W. F., McDonald, K. R., and Speare, R. 1996. Epidemic disease and the catastrophic
decline of Australian rain forest frogs. Conservation Biology 10: 406-413.
Liebezeit, J.R. 2002. A summary of predation by Corvids on threatened and endangered species
in California and management recommendations to reduce corvid predation.
Final report to California Department of Fish and Game, Species Conservation and Recovery
Program. Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, Sacramento, CA.
Means, D. B. 1996. Amphiuma means. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles 622.1622.2.
Means, D. B. 2005. Amphiuma pholeter Neill, 1964(b). One-toed amphiuma. Pages 645-646 in
M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 2008. Mississippi's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy.
http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Type%208.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 120

 Scientific Name:
Anodonta heardi
Common Name:
Apalachicola Floater
G Rank:
G1
Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports the range of the Apalachicola Floater to be 250-1000 square km
(about 100-400 square miles) in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, but Williams et al. (2008) report
that this species does not actually occur in Alabama, describing its range as the Coastal Plain
reaches of the Apalachicola Basin in Florida and Georgia. This mussel is known from the
Chattahoochee River near the junction with the Flint River, approximately 32 km downstream of
the Alabama-Florida state line. The Brim Box and Williams (2000) report of this species from
Alabama was a misidentification (Williams et al. 2008). This species may have occurred in
Alabama historically (Williams et al. 2008).
Habitat:
The Apalachicola Floater inhabits floodplain lakes and rivers in mud where there is slow to no
current (Deyrup and Franz 1994). One known site for this species is a backwater area with
relatively deep water and a substrate made up of mud and packed-sand (Gordon and Hoeh 1993).
Wisniewski (2008) describes this species' habitat as mud, sand, or detritus substrates in lakes,
oxbows, sloughs, and backwaters.
Ecology:
Wisniewski (2008) states that the brooding period for this species is presumed to parallel that of
the barrel floater (Anodonta couperiana), which exchanges gametes during late summer and
broods until mid-November. The host fish for the Apalachicola floater is unknown.
Populations:
There are approximately four populations of Apalachicola Floater. There are three locations in
Florida-- the Apalachicola River in Gadson County and in Calhoun County, and Tanvat Pond in
Jackson County (Gordon and Hoeh 1993). This mussel also occurs in a tributary of the Flint River
in Georgia (Brim Box and Williams 2000). Total population size for this mussel is low and is
crudely estimated at 50 - 2500 individuals (NatureServe 2008). This mussel is known from very
few individuals or shells at any one site.
Population Trends:
Available data indicate that this species, which was described in 1995, is declining (Brim Box and
Williams 2000).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Apalachicola Floater as critically imperiled in Alabama, Florida,
and Georgia. This species is known from only a handful of occurrences in three adjoining river
systems, with all occurrences represented by few individuals. It is "probably the most fragile of
the Anodonta species in North America in terms of intrinsic vulnerability" and faces "imminent
threats" (NatureServe 2008). It is listed as rare by the state of Georgia. This newly described
species is being ranked as vulnerable by the American Fisheries Society (2010 draft, in review).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 121

 Habitat destruction:
The Georgia Museum of Natural History describes the Apalachicola Floater as being "very
susceptible to changes within its habitat." Habitat degradation and loss have contributed to the
decline of this species, including the construction of impoundments, dredging of the Apalachicola
River to maintain a barge channel, and water withdrawals (NatureServe 2008). NatureServe
(2008) states that this mussel appears to have experienced some decline in overall habitat quality
due to imminent threats and may experience more as development impacts its native range.
Wisniewski (2008) lists the following threats to this species: "Habitat fragmentation may isolate
populations and prevent fish movement, limiting the distribution of host fishes carrying glochidia.
Additionally, construction of impoundments could further fragment populations and inundate
suitable habitat. Excessive water withdrawals in the lower Flint River basin coupled with severe
drought could cause this species to become extirpated from Georgia. Excess sedimentation due
to inadequate riparian buffer zones and incompatible agricultural practices may also cover suitable
habitat and could potentially suffocate individuals."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the Apalachicola Floater, and no
occurrences are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). It is listed as rare by
the state of Georgia, but this designation does not provide any regulatory protection. It has no state
status in Alabama or Florida.
NatureServe (2008) provides the following management recommendations for this mussel: "End
channel dredging of Apalachicola River. Monitor and attempt to control Asian clam. Protect
Apalachicola and Chipola rivers from pollution, siltation, impoundment, and other disturbance; this
must include headwaters in Alabama and Georgia. Limit withdrawal of surface and subterranean
waters as necessary to maintain normal stream flows, especially during drought. Protect floodplain
forests and at least 150 ft. (ca. 50 m) of adjoining upland from timber harvest, livestock, and
development. Situate roads at least 0.25 mi. (0.4 km) from heads of all tributaries, and even more
on steep slopes. Use silt fencing and vegetation to control runoff and siltation at all stream
crossings, especially during construction and maintenance. Prohibit dredging and damming of
streams and river. Avoid introduction of non-native invertebrates, especially zebra mussel
(Dreissena polymorpha). Use and maintain sewer systems rather than septic tanks and streamdumping for management of waste water. Ban use of agricultural pesticides on porous soils near
streams. Identify and maintain fish populations that serve as mussel larval hosts."
Other factors:
Other factors which threaten the Apalachicola Floater include pollution, invasive species, and
small population size. Pollution is believed to have contributed to the decline of this mussel,
particularly agricultural runoff (NatureServe 2008). The spread of exotic species, including the
Asiatic Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), threaten the
Apalachicola Floater. In addition, because this species exists in very low numbers at only five or so
sites, it is inherently vulnerable to extinction due to stochastic genetic or environmental events.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 122

 References:
Brim Box, J. and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 21: 1-143.
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Georgia Museum of Natural History. 2009. Apalachicola Floater species page. Available at:
http://dromus.nhm.uga.edu/~GMNH/gawildlife/index.php?page=speciespages/ai_species_page&
key=aheardi Last accessed April 27, 2009.
Gordon, M.E. and W.R. Hoeh. 1993. Anodonta heardi, a new species of freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia: Unionidae) from the Apalachicola River system of the Southeastern United States.
Walkerana, 7(17/18): 265-273.
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the
Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
908 pp.
Wisniewski, J. 2008. Anodonta heardi Species Account. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources.
Available at: georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/anodonta_heardi.pdf Last
accessed April 27, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 123

 Scientific Name:
Anodontoides radiatus
Common Name:
Rayed Creekshell
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The Rayed Creekshell occurs in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. This
mussel occurs from the Tickfaw River system in Louisiana (Vidrine 1985) to the Apalachicola,
Chattahoochee and Flint (ACF) rivers. It is apparently absent from the Yellow, Choctawhatchee,
and Chipola rivers (Deyrup and Franz 1994), but was recently detected in the Pea River. It occurs
in the Tombigbee-Alabama River system in Alabama and Mississippi, and the Conecuh-Escambia
system in Alabama (Heard 1975), although there are no known records of its occurrence from the
latter drainage in Florida. Johnson (1967) reported it as absent from the intervening
Choctawhatchee River system and the Chipola River of the Apalachicola River system. BlalockHerod et al. (2005) confirmed the distribution gap in the Choctawhatchee River drainage based on
historical literature, but found 12 new sites (11 in Alabama, 1 in Florida) there during recent
survey efforts, mostly in small tributaries (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Although the rayed creekshell is known from large rivers, most collections are from small to
medium-sized creeks where it occurs in mud, sand, or gravel substrates in slow to medium
currents (Clench and Turner 1956, Jenkinson 1973, Heard 1979, NatureServe 2008). Mirarchi et
al. (2004) provide the following description of this species' habitat: "most commonly in small to
medium sized coastal plain streams, but historical records exist from larger rivers as well (Brim
Box and Williams 2000). Typically occurs in sand or silt substrata in areas of low to moderate
current (Brim Box and Williams 2000, Haag et al. 2002, Blalock-Herod et al. 2005)."
Ecology:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that the ecology of this species is poorly known, but that gravid
females have been detected in September and December (Brim Box and Williams 2000),
suggesting that it is a long-term brooder. Glochidial hosts are unknown, but because closely
related species are generalists, it may be able to use a variety of host fishes.
Populations:
The Rayed Creekshell is sporadically distributed in five southeastern states-- Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, and Mississippi (NatureServe 2008). This mussel was historically known from 21
occurrences in the ACF Basin, but in a recent survey it was detected at only four of 324 surveyed sites
(Brim Box and Williams 2000). Johnson (1967) cites historical cites in the Alabama-Coosa River
System including the Tombigbee River drainage in Mississippi and Alabama, the Coosa River drainage
in Alabama, and the Alabama River drainage in Alabama. In the Escambia River System, Johnson
(1967) cites the Conecuh River drainage in Alabama, the Chattahoochee and Flint River drainages in
Georgia, and the Apalachicola River drainage in Florida. In the Escambia River drainage this mussel
was collected historically at 10 occurrences from tributaries and the main stem of the Conecuh River.
Recently in a survey of the Escambia and Yellow rivers, it was detected at six sites, but was absent at all
of the resurveyed historical locations, and appears to now be restricted to small, isolated tributaries in
Alabama (Williams et al. 2000). In the Pea River system (Choctawhatchee River system), this mussels
was recently detected at only one of approximately 50 surveyed sites (Blalock et al. 1998). Blalock-

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 124

 Herod et al. (2005) confirm the distribution gap in the Choctawhatchee River drainage based on
historical literature, and report a new site in Florida and 11 new sites in Alabama, mostly in small
tributaries. Pilarczyk et al. (2006) surveyed 24 sites in the Choctawhatchee River drainage but did not
detect this species. In the Coosa River basin in Georgia, this mussel was historically known from the
Etowah and Oostanaula River drainages, but there have been no recent live detections there (Williams
and Hughes 2001). Vidrine (1993) reported Louisiana distribution as western Louisiana, the Taucipano
River in eastern Louisiana, and other scattered locations. Brown and Banks (2001) report this species
from eastern Louisiana in the Amite and Tangipahoa Rivers.
Little is known about the rayed creekshell’s historical abundance, but it was likely rare. NatureServe
(2008) states: "Museum records suggest that historically it was seldom collected in large numbers, and
today it is unusual to find more than a few individuals at a site. Clench and Turner (1956) noted that
Anodontoides radiatus was "exceedingly rare" in the ACF Basin. Heard (1975) listed A. radiatus among
species he considered to have a reduced range or abundance (i.e., are now very rare or extinct in part of
their present or past range, respectively). One of the largest collections of A. radiatus was made by H. H.
Smith on 25 June 1915 in Uchee Creek (Russell County, Alabama). The collection totaled 24
individuals (Brim Box and Williams, 2000). In a recent survey of the Escambia River drainage 15 live
individuals were collected from six sites in upper tributaries (Williams et al., 2000), while a single live
individual was found in the Pea River watershed (Blalock et al., 1998)."
Population Trends:
The Rayed Creekshell is declining in the short term (decline of 10-30 percent) and moderately
declining to relatively stable in the long term (NatureServe 2008). This species appears to have
been rare and sporadically distributed historically, and is currently experiencing a reduction in
both distribution and abundance. NatureServe states: "Clench and Turner (1956) noted that it was
"exceedingly rare" in the ACF Basin. Heard (1975) listed this species among species he
considered to have a reduced range or abundance (i.e., are now very rare or extinct in part of their
present or past range, respectively). Williams et al. (1993) considered the rayed creekshell to be
of special concern throughout its range, indicating that it should be carefully monitored. It may be
nearly extirpated in Florida (formerly in Mosquito Creek, Apalachicola River basin, see Clench
and Turner, 1956). Based on the results of a recent survey, it was assigned a conservation status
of endangered in the ACF Basin (Brim Box and Williams, 2000). Williams et al. (2000)
considered the rayed creekshell to be threatened in the Escambia River drainage. Pilarczyk et al.
(2006) did not find any specimens in a survey of 24 sites of the Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and
Conecuh-Escambia River drainages of Alabama in 2004."
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Rayed Creekshell as critically imperiled in Alabama, imperiled in
Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and state historical in Florida. The IUCN ranks it as Near
Threatened. Though this species has a wide range, there have been recent reductions in both number of
sites and abundance per site. It is ranked as special concern/vulnerable by the American Fisheries
Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
The Rayed Creekshell is threatened by stream modification, sedimentation resulting from bank
destabilization, runoff from agricultural areas, and pollutants from point and non-point sources
(NatureServe 2008). Any land-use activity that degrades water quality threatens this species' habitat.
Blalock-Herod et al. (2000) report that this mussel is threatened by proposed impoundments in the
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 125

 Choctawhatchee River drainage. Wisniewski (2008) provides the following account of threats to this
species: "Habitat fragmentation may isolate populations and prevent fish movement, limiting the
distribution of host fishes carrying glochidia. Additionally, construction of impoundments could further
fragment populations and inundate suitable habitat. Excessive water withdrawals in the Lower Flint
River Basin coupled with severe drought could cause this species to become extirpated from Georgia.
Excess sedimentation due to inadequate riparian buffer zones and incompatible agricultural practices
may also cover suitable habitat and could potentially suffocate individuals. Rapid development of the
northern extent of the Flint River Basin could severely impact the remaining populations of this
species." The Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (2010) reports that mussels in the
Tombigbee Drainage are highly threatened by channel modification, agriculture, forestry, resource
extraction, industrial development, dams, and headcutting. Gillies et al. (2003) report that urbanization
threatens this species in the Atlanta area.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect this species, and no
occurrences are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). It is listed as
Threatened in the state of Georgia and is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama and
Mississippi, but these designations do not provide the mussel or its habitat with substantial
regulatory protection. It has no state status in Florida or Louisiana.
Other factors:
The Rayed Creekshell is threatened by any factor which degrades water quality. Wisniewski (2008)
lists drought as a threat to this species.
References:
Blalock, H.N., J.J. Herod, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Freshwater mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of
the Pea River Watershed of Alabama and Florida. Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 61 pp.
Blalock-Herod, H.N., J.J. Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2000. Freshwater Mussels of the
Choctawhatchee River Drainage in Alabama and Florida. Poster presentation to the Southern
Division American Fisheries Society Midyear Meeting Symposium on the "Conservation of
Freshwater Nongame Aquatic Fauna in the Southeast -Challenges for the New Millennium."
February 5-6, 2000. Savannah, Georgia. U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Integrated Science
Center. Accessed Feb. 1, 2010 at:
http://fl.biology.usgs.gov/posters/Southeastern_Fauna/Choctawhat/choctawhat.html
Blalock-Herod, H.N., J.J. Herod, J.D. Williams, B.N. Wilson, and S.W. McGregor. 2005. A
historical and current perspective of the freshwater mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from the
Choctawhatchee River drainage in Alabama and Florida. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of
Natural History, 24: 1-26.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 126

 Brim Box, J. and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 21: 1-143.
Brown, K.M. and P.D. Banks. 2001. The conservation of unionid mussels in Louisiana rivers:
diversity, assemblage composition and substrate use. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems, 11(3): 189-198.
Clench, W.J. and R.D. Turner. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from
the Escambia to the Suwanee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences,
1(3): 97-239.
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Gillies, R.R., J. Brim Box, J. Symanzik, and E.J. Rodemarker. 2003. Effects of urbanization on
the aquatic fauna of the Line Creek watershed, Atlanta—a satellite perspective. Remote Sensing
of Environment 86:411-422.
Haag, W.R. 2002. Occurrence of the rayed creekshell, Anodontoides radiatus, in the Mississippi
River basin: implications for conservation and biogeography. Southeastern Naturalist, 1(2): 169178.
Heard, W.H. 1975. Determination of the endangered status of freshwater clams of the Gulf and
Southeastern states. Report for the Office of Endangered Species, Bureau of Fisheries and
Wildlife, U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. 31 pp.
Heard, W.H. 1979. Identification manual of the fresh water clams of Florida. State of Florida,
Department of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series, 4(2): 1-82.
Jenkinson, J.J. 1973. Distribution and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) in
four creek systems in east-central Alabama. Unpublished Master's thesis, Auburn University,
Auburn, Alabama. 96 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1967. Additions to the Unionid fauna of the Gulf Drainage of Alabama, Georgia
and Florida (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Breviora, 270: 1-21.
Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia:
Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.
Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 2010. Mississippi's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy. Streams. Accessed Feb. 1, 2010 at:
http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Types%20121.pdf
Pilarczyk, M.M., P.M. Stewart, D.N. Shelton, H.N. Blalock-Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2006.
Current and Recent historical freshwater mussel assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains.
Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2): 205-226.
Vidrine, M.F. 1993. The Historical Distributions of Freshwater Mussels in Louisiana. Gail Q.
Vidrine Collectibles: Eunice, Louisiana. xii + 225 pp. + 20 plates.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 127

 Williams, J.D. and M.H. Hughes. 1998. Freshwater mussels of selected reaches of the main
channel rivers in the Coosa drainage of Georgia. U.S. Geological report to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District, Alabama. 21 pp.
Williams, J.D. and R.S. Butler. 1994. Class Bivalvia, Order Unionoida, freshwater bivalves.
Pages 53-128, 740-742 in M. Deyrup and R. Frantz (eds.) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
Volume 4. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Williams, J.D., H.N. Blalock, A. Benson, and D.N. Shelton. 2000. Distribution of the freshwater
mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae and Unionidae) in the Escambia and Yellow river
drainages in southern Alabama and western Florida. Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 61 pp.
Wisniewski, J.M. 2008. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources Species Account. Accessed
4/16/2009 at:
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage=15

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 128

 Scientific Name:
Antrorbis breweri
Common Name:
Manitou Cavesnail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of the Manitou Cavesnail consists of less than 100 square km in Alabama (NatureServe
2008). This species is known only from its type locality, a cave in Fort Payne, DeKalb County,
Alabama (Hershler and Thompson 1990, Mirarchi 2004).
Habitat:
This snail lives in the uppermost portion of a small (less than 1 m) cool stream that emerges
amongst limestone rubble. The stream cascades through several narrow openings into a shallow
(1-2 cm) pool in a small, rectangular, cement-lined structure (Hershler and Thompson 1990).
Populations:
There is only one population of Manitou Cavesnail, and total population size is crudely estimated
at 50-2500 individuals (NatureServe 2008). Hershler and Thompson (1990) report that snails
were extremely scarce at the time of collection.
Population Trends:
This species was recently identified, and no population trend data are available.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Manitou Cavesnail as critically imperiled, and the IUCN ranks this
species as vulnerable.
Habitat destruction:
Because the Manitou Cavesnail occurs at only a single location, it is extremely vulnerable to
habitat degradation. Hershler and Thompson (1990) report that the cave where this species occurs
was somewhat disturbed at the time of species' collection. The cave was formerly a commercial
cave, but has been gated since 1980. Because a single habitat disturbing event could eradicate this
species, even though the cave is now gated, this species' habitat is still vulnerable to illegal entry
or potential future re-opening of the cave. Cave environments are very sensitive to perturbations,
and can be degraded by activities that occur outside of the cave environment (Scott 2004). Scott
(2004) states: “Subterranean ecosystems, aquatic and terrestrial, are extremely delicate
environments with stable, constant temperatures, humidity, air circulation patterns, chemical
characteristics, and detrital inputs. Even minor perturbative events can result in large kills of cave
fauna. Threats include agricultural, industrial, and residential pollutants, especially pesticides and
herbicides (which may simply leach through soils); erosion and siltation caused by destruction of
vegetation at sink perimeters; changes in detrital input; pumping of water; collection of fauna;
invasive exotic species; and disturbance of fauna or nutrient reserves by spelunkers and divers . . .
Degradation of surface habitats may also threaten cave fauna” (p. 77).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Manitou Cavesnail. The single cave
where this species occurs is currently gated. This species needs Endangered Species Act protection to
ensure that its habitat is protected in perpetuity.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 129

 Other factors:
The Manitou Cavesnail is threatened by any factor which degrades the water quality or alters the
environmental conditions to which it is adapted. Activities inside or outside the cave environment
that alter the quality, temperature, or availability of water threaten this snail, including pollution,
groundwater development, drought, or global climate change. The water that supplies the cave was
once part of the municipal water supply for Fort Payne. As freshwater resources become more
scarce, future diversion of this water supply could jeopardize the existence of this snail.
References:
Hershler, R. and F.G. Thompson. 1990. Antrobia breweri, a new genus and species of hydrobiid
cavesnail (Gastropoda) from Coosa River basin, Northeastern Alabama. Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington 103(1): 197-204.
Scott, C. 2004. Endangered and threatened animals of Florida and their habitats. Austin:
University of Texas Press. 315 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 130

 Scientific Name:
Aphaostracon asthenes
Common Name:
Blue Spring Hydrobe Snail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of the Blue Spring Hydrobe Snail consists of less than 100 square km in Volusia
County, Florida (NatureServe 2008). This snail occurs only at its type locality, Blue Spring, in
Blue Springs State Park, west of Orange City (Burgess and Franz 1978, Franz 1982, Johnson
1973, Thompson 1968, 1999).
Habitat:
This snail occurs in the upper portion of a spring run where plants and bottom debris are sparse
(Thompson 1968, Franz 1982).
Populations:
There is only one population of this species, and population abundance is unknown (NatureServe
2008).
Population Trends:
Bleasdale et al. (2009) and Jnbaptiste et al. (2009) report that this snail is declining and is now
present in lower densities than in 1992-1993.
Status:
The Blue Spring Hydrobe is critically imperiled (G1S1) (NatureServe 2008). It is categorized as
Vulnerable by the IUCN. It is a C2 federal listing candidate (F.R. 84-05-22) in need of full ESA
protection.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that deteriorating water quality due to erosion and runoff potentially
threaten the single occurrence of this species. The Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission
(2009) reports that spring habitats in the state are very highly threatened by nutrient loading from
agricultural and urban runoff, and by invasive plants and animals. Bleasdale et al. (2009) report
that "there is evidence suggesting chemical changes to the waters of Blue Spring and the St. John's
River from direct spilling or dumping, runoff and flow rate changes from land use in the recharge
basin, and/or seepage of chemicals into the groundwater source for Blue Spring." They also report
that this species' habitat is threatened by the introduction of exotic species such as the
Vermiculated Sailfin Catfish (Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus), which uses the long algal filaments
that are a habitat component for the snail as a food source. Jnbaptiste et al. (2009) also report
recent declines in water quality and outflow at the spring.
This snail is threatened by recreation, as there is a developed swimming area in part of the spring
(Moss et al. 2009). The park management plan states that the spring has suffered from erosion due
to people climbing on the spring banks (Florida Division of Recreation and Parks 1999). The
Hydrobe is also threatened by logging, as the park management plan allows for timbering
operations within park boundaries (Florida Division of Recreation and Parks 1999). Invasive
tilapia (Tilapia aurea) are causing habitat degradation at Blue Spring. Tilapia make deep spawning
beds in the sand bottom which can undermine bank stability (Florida Division of Recreation and
Parks 1999).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 131

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This snail occurs in a state park, but the primary purpose of the park is outdoor recreation (Florida
Division of Recreation and Parks 1999). It has no state status.
Other factors:
The lone population of this snail is threatened by any factor which causes water quality
deterioration. Melhop and Vaughn (1994) report that due to relative immobility and dependence on
highly oxygenated waters, endemic springsnails such as the Blue Spring Hydrobe are threatened by
groundwater depletion, surface water diversion, and changes in water quality. Because this species
occurs at only one site, spring alteration could result in species extirpation. Bleasdale et al.
(2009) and Jnbaptiste et al. (2009) report deteriorating water quality at the spring. This snail is
inherently vulnerable to extinction because of its occurrence in a single population, which could
be extirpated by stochastic genetic or environmental events. This snail is also threatened by
invasive species which prey on filamentous algae such as sailfin catfish (Bleasdale et al. 2009) and
tilapia (Florida Division of Recreation and Parks 1999).
References:
Bleasdale, C.J., M.A. Reiter, and A.J. Brooks-Walter. 2009. Potential drivers impacting the
endemic snail populations of Blue Spring, Volusia County FL. Abstracts of the 73rd Annual
Meeting of the Florida Academy of Sciences, in conjunction with the Tampa Bay Section of the
American Chemical Society. Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida
20-21 March 2009.
Burgess, G.H. and R. Franz. 1978. Zoogeography of the aquatic fauna of the St. Johns River
system with comments on adjacent peninsular faunas. The American Midland Naturalist, 100(1):
160-170.
Florida Division of Recreation and Parks. 1999. Blue Spring State Park and Hontoon Island State
Park Unit Management Plan. Approved Plan. State of Florida Dept. of Environmental
Protection. Available at:
http://edocs.dlis.state.fl.us/fldocs/dep/parks/unitmanplan/1999/BlueSpringStatePark.pdf Last
accessed Jan. 6, 2010.
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Springs.
http://www.fwc.state.fl.us/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Spring.pdf.
Franz, R. (ed.) 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida: Volume Six: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida: Gainesville, Florida. 131 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1973. Distribution of Hydrobiidae, a family of fresh and brackish water gastropods,
in peninsular Florida. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 3(46): 281-303.
Mehlhop, P., and C. C. Vaughn. 1994. Threats to and sustainability of ecosystems for freshwater
mollusks. Pages 68-77 in W. Covington and L. F. Dehanid, editors. Sustainable ecological
systems: implementing an ecological approach to land management. General technical report
Rm-247. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Experimental Station, Fort
Collins, Colorado. http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/awa/ripthreatbib/mehlhop_vaughn_threatssusteco.pdf
Moss, R.J., M.A. Reiter, and A.J. Brooks-Walter. 2009. A survey of the endemic snail

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 132

 populations of Blue Spring in response to habitat degradation. 2009. Potential drivers impacting
the endemic snail populations of Blue Spring, Volusia County FL. Abstracts of the 73rd Annual
Meeting of the Florida Academy of Sciences, in conjunction with the Tampa Bay Section of the
American Chemical Society. Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida 20-21 March 2009.
Thompson, F.G. 1968. The Aquatic Snails of the family Hydrobiidae of peninsular Florida.
University of Florida Press: Gainesville, Florida. 268 pp.
Thompson, F.G. 1999. An identification manual for the freshwater snails of Florida. Walkerana
10(23): 1-96.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 133

 Scientific Name:
Aphaostracon chalarogyrus
Common Name:
Freemouth Hydrobe Snail
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The total range of this snail is less than 100 square km as it occupies a single spring in Alachua
County, Florida (Burgess and Franz 1978, Johnson 1973, Thompson 1999).
Habitat:
This snail occurs on floating mats of filamentous algae in a spring pool that is approximately 10 ft
deep. The spring is a water source for a swimming pool and has been impounded by a large
circular concrete wall. The pool has a fine calcareous silty sand bottom and supports thick patches
and mats of filamentous algae. There is a rectangular cement outflow pool adjacent to the spring
that is 6 ft wide, 10 ft long, and a few inches deep with a "bottom of fine calcareous ooze
overlying the cement and large mats of Spirogyra floating on the surface." Remaining water drains
into a flatwood swamp bordered by a small creek with sand substrate. Thompson (1968) reported
that the snail was abundant in the drainage pool by the spring, less common in the spring pool, but
generally distributed over the cement wall, bottom silt, and vegetation. Snails were not detected in
the spring run, flatwood swamp, or creek (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There is only one population of this snail and population size is unknown.
Population Trends:
Population trend is unknown for this species.
Status:
This snail is critically imperiled in Florida (G1S1) (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
Because this snail occurs at only a single spring, disturbance to the spring could cause extinction
of this species (NatureServe 2008). Magnesia Springs has been modified and flows into a
swimming pool at a private recreation area. Alachua County (2006) reports that the spring is in
fair condition and that the site is "endangered by residential development."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The lone population of this snail is in a private recreation area and is not appropriately protected
and managed (NatureServe 2008). There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to ensure its
survival.
References:
Alachua County Department of Growth Management. 2006. Alachua County Ecological
Inventory Report. Available at: http://ecosystems.alachuacounty.us/kbn_report/report.php Last
accessed January 9, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 134

 Burgess, G.H. and R. Franz. 1978. Zoogeography of the aquatic fauna of the St. Johns River
system with comments on adjacent peninsular faunas. The American Midland Naturalist, 100(1):
160-170.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1973. Distribution of Hydrobiidae, a family of fresh and brackish water gastropods,
in peninsular Florida. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 3(46): 281-303.
Thompson, F. G. 1984. Freshwater snails of Florida. A manual for identification. University of
Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. pp. 1-x, 1-94.
Thompson, F.G. 1968. The Aquatic Snails of the family Hydrobiidae of peninsular Florida.
University of Florida Press: Gainesville, Florida. 268 pp.
Thompson, F.G. 1999. An identification manual for the freshwater snails of Florida. Walkerana
10(23): 1-96.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 135

 Scientific Name:
Aphaostracon monas
Common Name:
Wekiwa Hydrobe Snail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of the Wekiwa Hydrobe Snail is less than 100 square km in the St. John's River System
in Orange County, Florida, where it is restricted to Wekiwa Springs and spring run (Franz 1982,
Johnson 1973, Thompson 1968, 1999).
Habitat:
This snail occurs on submerged gravel, rocks, and plants in and adjacent to springs and spring runs
with high mineral content and steady annual temperatures (Thompson 1968).
Populations:
There is one population of this snail and population size is unknown (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this species (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this snail as critically imperiled (G1S1). It is categorized as vulnerable
by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
The Wekiwa Hydrobe Snail is exceptionally vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation because the
lone population of this species occurs in a heavily used state park recreation area. Recreational
impacts could cause water pollution, increased siltation, decreased aquatic vegetation, and direct
crushing and displacement of snails (NatureServe 2008, Reiter 1992). Decreasing water quality
or quantity threaten this species, as do external sources of pollution and groundwater decline
resulting from increasing urbanization (Walsh 2001).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechansims to protect this species.
References:
Franz, R. (ed.) 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida: Volume Six: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida: Gainesville, Florida. 131 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1973. Distribution of Hydrobiidae, a family of fresh and brackish water gastropods,
in peninsular Florida. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 3(46): 281-303.
Reiter, M.A. 1992. The distribution of the blue spring Aphaostracon in blue spring run, Florida:
final report. Unpublished report to The Nature Conservancy from Department of Biology,
Seminole Community College, Sanford, Florida. pp. 19.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 136

 Thompson, Dr. Fred G., Curator of Malacology, Florida Museum of Natural History, University
of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. ALAC. 352/392-1721. SUNCOM: 622-1721.
Thompson, F.G. 1968. The Aquatic Snails of the family Hydrobiidae of peninsular Florida.
University of Florida Press: Gainesville, Florida. 268 pp.
Thompson, F.G. 1999. An identification manual for the freshwater snails of Florida. Walkerana
10(23): 1-96.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 137

 Scientific Name:
Aphaostracon pycnus
Common Name:
Dense Hydrobe Snail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
This snail is restricted to Alexander Springs Run in the Ocala National Forest in Lake County,
Florida, St. Johns River system. It has a total global range of less than 100 square km (Burgess and
Franz 1978, Franz 1982, Johnson 1973, Thompson 1968, 1999).
Habitat:
This snail occurs on aquatic vegetation such as water lettuce and hyacinths in shallow, quiet, clear
pools with soft bottom substrate along a spring run (Thompson 1968).
Populations:
There is only one occurrence of this species and total population size is unknown.
Population Trends:
Population trend information is not available for this snail.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Dense Hydrobe as critically imperiled (G1S1). It is categorized as
Vulnerable by the IUCN. It is a Forest Service Southern Region Sensitive Species.
Habitat destruction:
Because there is only one known population of this snail, it is highly vulnerable to habitat loss and
degradation. This snail occurs in a spring that is crossed by state Highway 445, making road
runoff and degraded water quality a threat to its survival (Thompson 1968). Because this snail's
entire habitat is in a National Forest, it is threatened by sedimentation from logging and
recreational impacts (NatureServe 2008). Melhop and Vaughn (1994) report that due to relative
immobility and dependence on highly oxygenated waters, endemic springsnails such as the Dense
Hydrobe are threatened by groundwater depletion, surface water diversion, and changes in water
quality. Because this species occurs at only one site, spring alteration could result in species
extirpation. The Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (2009) reports that spring habitats in
the state are very highly threatened by nutrient loading from agricultural and urban runoff, and by
invasive plants and animals.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect this species. NatureServe
(2008) reports that is unknown whether the lone population of this snail is appropriately protected
and managed. This snail occurs on the Ocala National Forest where it is a Forest Service sensitive
species, but protection extended to sensitive species is discretionary. This snail has no state status
in Florida.
Other factors:
Any factor which results in water quality degradation at the lone spring where this species occurs
is a threat to its survival.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 138

 References:
Burgess, G.H. and R. Franz. 1978. Zoogeography of the aquatic fauna of the St. Johns River
system with comments on adjacent peninsular faunas. The American Midland Naturalist, 100(1):
160-170.
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Springs.
http://www.fwc.state.fl.us/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Spring.pdf.
Franz, R. (ed.) 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida: Volume Six: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida: Gainesville, Florida. 131 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1973. Distribution of Hydrobiidae, a family of fresh and brackish water gastropods,
in peninsular Florida. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 3(46): 281-303.
Mehlhop, P., and C. C. Vaughn. 1994. Threats to and sustainability of ecosystems for freshwater
mollusks. Pages 68-77 in W. Covington and L. F. Dehanid, editors. Sustainable ecological
systems: implementing an ecological approach to land management. General technical report
Rm-247. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Experimental Station, Fort
Collins, Colorado. http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/awa/ripthreatbib/mehlhop_vaughn_threatssusteco.pdf
Thompson, F.G. 1968. The Aquatic Snails of the family Hydrobiidae of peninsular Florida.
University of Florida Press: Gainesville, Florida. 268 pp.
Thompson, F.G. 1999. An identification manual for the freshwater snails of Florida. Walkerana
10(23): 1-96.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 139

 Scientific Name:
Aphaostracon theiocrenetum
Common Name:
Clifton Spring Hydrobe Snail
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The total range of the Clifton Spring Hydrobe is less than 100 square km in Seminole County,
Florida (NatureServe 2008). This species is known only from Clifton Springs Run, which flows
into Lake Jessup in the St. Johns River system (Burgess and Franz 1978, Thompson 1968, 1999).
Habitat:
This snail occurs in mats of Chara and other vegetation in flowing, shallow water over a clean,
hard, sand substrate. The spring run where it occurs is 10-25 feet wide, 200 yards long, and ranges
from a few inches to about 2 feet in depth. The spring is bound on both sides by high sand banks
and has high hydrogen sulfide content (Thompson 1968).
Populations:
There is only one population of this snail. Within this population, snails are abundant (Thompson
1968).
Population Trends:
Population trend is unknown for this species.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the hydrobe as critically imperiled in Florida (G1S1). It is a Florida
Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
Habitat destruction:
The lone population of this snail occurs in a private recreational facility, making it highly
vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation. NatureServe (2008) reports that there are boat docks in
the facility, and that this snail is potentially threatened by hydrocarbon pollution from boats.
NatureServe (2008) also reports that this species is potentially threatened by a rumored dredging
application. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (2009) reports that there are 42 total habitat
acres for this snail, only 3 acres of which are protected. The Florida Wildlife Conservation
Commission (2009) reports that spring habitats in the state are very highly threatened by nutrient
loading from agricultural and urban runoff, and by invasive plants and animals. The land use in the
watershed planning unit where this snail occurs is 45 percent urbanized, and there are many
sources of point and non-point source pollution (Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection
2003). Because hydrobes are sensitive to water quality, pollution of its habitat is a threat to this
species' survival. Lake Jessup is polluted by excessive phosphorus, nitrogen, and organic “muck”
deposits, and has become a hypereutrophic lake that is deficient of submerged aquatic vegetation
and has declining fish numbers. The watershed planning unit where this snail occurs has 21
permitted point source dischargers, including 11 domestic wastewater facilities, 7 industrial
wastewater facilities, 2 concrete batch plants, and a groundwater treatment system at a petroleum
contamination site. There is also a Class I solid waste landfill and two delineated groundwater
areas that are contaminated by ethylene dibromide (EDB) (Florida Dept. of Environmental
Protection 2003).
Walsh (2001) reports that Florida's spring organisms are threatened by habitat loss, spring
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 140

 modification, ground-water contamination, aquifer withdrawals, saltwater intrusion, and
recreational activities, stating: “Springs are frequently modified for consumptive or recreational
purposes, with concomitant impacts on aquatic organisms. Many of Florida's karst species are
threatened by habitat modifications due to their very localized distributions . . . Perhaps the most
serious potential threat to Florida's hypogean and spring faunas is ground-water pollution and/or
saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and aquifer resources are increasingly tapped . . .
In recent years, there have been notable increases in contaminants and nutrients within some
Florida ground-water sources. Eutrophication in spring habitats may result in greater algal growth,
increased turbidity, and physicochemical and biological changes that can be detrimental to native
species.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There is only one population of this snail, and it is not appropriately protected and managed
(NatureServe 2008). The spring where this snail occurs is in a private recreational facility. This
snail is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Florida
(http://www.masgc.org/gmrp/plans/FL%20FWCII.pdf) but this designation does not confer any
regulatory protection.
Other factors:
This snail is threatened by water pollution.
References:
Burgess, G.H. and R. Franz. 1978. Zoogeography of the aquatic fauna of the St. Johns River
system with comments on adjacent peninsular faunas. The American Midland Naturalist, 100(1):
160-170.
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection. 2003. Division of Water Resource Management.
Basin Status Report, Central District, Group 2 Basin, Middle St. Johns. Available at:
http://tlhdwf2.dep.state.fl.us/basin411/sj_middle/status/MS-Johns.pdf Last accessed Jan. 7,
2010.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2009. Florida Forever Conservation Needs Assessment
Technical Report Version 3.2 Available at:
http://www.fnai.org/PDF/FF_CNA_tech_report_aug09.pdf Last accessed January 7, 2010.
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Springs.
http://www.fwc.state.fl.us/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Spring.pdf.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Thompson, F.G. 1968. The Aquatic Snails of the family Hydrobiidae of peninsular Florida.
University of Florida Press: Gainesville, Florida. 268 pp.
Thompson, F.G. 1999. An identification manual for the freshwater snails of Florida. Walkerana
10(23): 1-96.
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater Macrofauna of Florida Karst Habitats. In Eve L. Kuniansky, editor,
2001, U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group
Proceedings, Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011, p. 78-88
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 141

 Scientific Name:
Arnoglossum diversifolium
Common Name:
Variable-leaved Indian-plantain
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This plant is found in the Florida panhandle and adjacent portions of Georgia and Alabama.
Records exist for Early, Baker, and Miller Counties, Georgia (Duncan et al. 1981, Jones and
Coile 1988), Walton, Washington, Holmes, Jackson, Calhoun, Leon, disjunctly in Levy and
Putnam Counties, Florida (Wunderlin and Hansen 2002), and Houston County, Alabama (ALNHP
1990).
Habitat:
The plantain inhabits floodplain forests over limestone formations, and is often found along the
banks of woodland streams or in seasonally wet places in woody hammocks or calcareous swamps
(Godfrey and Wooten 1981, Chafin 2007, Weakley 2008).
Ecology:
This plant is perennial.
Populations:
Roughly 30 occurrences of this species were reported as of 2007; locations and population sizes
are not reported (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
This plant is currently considered to be stable, but its habitat is widely threatened (NatureServe
2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the variable leaf Indian plantain as critically imperiled in Alabama, and
imperiled in Florida and Georgia. It is state listed as threatened in both Florida and Georgia.
Habitat destruction:
Impoundments or other hydrological alterations destroy this plant's habitat, which is also degraded
by urbanization, agriculture, and other human activities (NatureServe 2008). Recreation also
threatens this species. Trampling destroys individuals, especially at popular fishing sites
(Wunderlin 1980).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species occurs in Marianna Caverns State Park (Florida) but is not adequately protected; no
other populations are known to be appropriately protected or managed (Chagin 2007). Though it is
listed as threatened in Florida and Georgia, this designation offers the variable leaf Indian plantain
no substantive regulatory protections; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this
species.
Other factors:
Invasive exotics, particularly Chinese privet (Ligustrem sinense) may outcompete and destroy
colonies of A. diversifolium.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 142

 References:
Alabama Natural Heritage Program. 1990. A database of Alabama flora; unpublished.
Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia.
Clewell, A.F. 1985. Guide to vascular plants of the Florida panhandle. Florida State Univ. Press,
Tallahassee, Florida. 605 pp.
Duncan, W.H., and J.T. Kartesz. 1981. Vascular flora of Georgia: an annotated checklist.
University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2006b. Flora of North America North of Mexico.
Vol. 20. Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, part 7: Asteraceae, part 2. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
xxii + 666 pp.
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United
States: Dicotyledons. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.
Jones, S.B., and N. Coile. 1988. The distribution of the vascular flora of Georgia. University of
Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 13, 2010)
Weakley, A. S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding
areas. Working Draft of 7 April 2008. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North
Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Online. Available:
http://herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm (Accessed 2008).
Wunderlin, R.P. and B.F. Hansen. 2003. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida. 2nd edition.
University Press of Florida, Tampa. 788 pp.
Wunderlin, R.P., et al. 1980. Endangered and Threatened Plant Status Surveys: Status Report on
Arnoglossum diversi- folium. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 143

 Scientific Name:
Automeris louisiana
Common Name:
Louisiana Eyed Silkmoth
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Automeris louisiana is found on the coast of Louisiana and adjacent Mississippi (NatureServe
2008). It may occur in adjacent coastal Texas. Its coastal marsh habitat is continuous, and is
estimated at 5600 sq. km.
Habitat:
The Louisiana Eyed silkmoth is coastal and is found in "Southern cordgrass prairie" also known as
salt or brackish marsh.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008), crudely estimates that there are from 21-300 populations within the
continous coastal marsh habitat of this moth. It is fairly common where found.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is declining, perhaps severely, due primarily to
recent hurricane activity (decline of 10 - greater than 70 percent). Data are needed after
Hurricane Katrina which completely washed away significant habitat and affected most or all of
the range severely. There can be no question the 2005 hurricanes killed huge numbers of all
stages, probably most individuals, and permanently eliminated some habitat. It is not known how
severe this damage was or how quickly the species might recover.
Status:
Automeris lousiana has a limited overall range, and coastal wetland loss in Louisiana is a constant
and continuing threat (NatureServe 2008). The limited range and specialized habitat are sufficient
to consider this moth globally uncommon, and in addition, virtually the entire known range was
devastated by hurricances in 2005. Probably all habitat rangewide was under water during at least
one of the major storms that year. On this basis even G1 cannot now be ruled out, assuming some
stages survived the hurricanes in some places. This species is currently ranked as G1G3 (critically
imperiled to vulnerable), and as SNR (under review) in all states of occurrence.
Habitat destruction:
Hurricanes are a primary threat to this species, and much of the habitat was lost to Hurricane
Katrina (NatureServe 2008). Coastal wetlands in Louisiana are also declining due to submergence
related to channelization of the Mississippi River and to fossil fuel extraction (Gosselink et al. in
Mac et al. 1998). It is also threatened by habitat fragmentation (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this species. NatureServe (2008)
reports that it is unknown if any occurrences are protected.
Other factors:
This moth is threatened by spraying for mosquito control (NatureServe 2008). It is also threatened
by global climate change, as climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 144

 hurricanes (globalchange.gov), a primary threat to this species habitat.
References:
Gosselink, J. G., J. M. Coleman, and R. E. Stewart, Jr. 1998. Coastal Loisiana. Pages 385-436 in:
Mac, M., Opler, P., Puckett Haecker, C. and P. Doran. Status and Trends of our Nation's
Biological Resources. 2 Volumes. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, Virginia.
Peigler, R.S. and Paul Opler. 1993. Moths of Western North America, 1. Distribution of
Saturniidae of North America. Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Insect Biodiversity Museum
Department of Entomology, Colorado State University.
Struttman, J. 1997. April 25, 2000-last update. Moths of North America. Saturniidae. U.S.
Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center,
Jamestown, North Dakota. Online. Available:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/lepid/moths/usa/.
Tuskes, P. M., J. P. Tuttle, and M. M. Collins. 1996. The Wild Silk Moths of North America: A
Natural History of the Saturniidae of the United States and Canada. Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, New York. 250 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 145

 Scientific Name:
Balduina atropurpurea
Common Name:
Purple Balduina
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Also known as the purpledisk honeycombhead, B. atropurpurea is endemic to the southeastern
Coastal Plain. Known occurrences are geographically scattered and the species is thought to be
extirpated from several historical locations, possibly from some entire states (Patrick et al.
1995). The range of this species is disjunct; populations are known in southern Georgia,
northeastern Florida, and adjacent parts of Alabama, and separately in North and South Carolina,
though these have not been recently confirmed (Weakley 2007). The species may now be found
only in Georgia and Florida, but more extensive surveys are needed.
Habitat:
The purple balduina is found in wet pine flatwoods (longleaf, Pinus palustris, or slash pine, P.
elliottii), wet savannahs, hilly seepage bogs, and pitcherplant bogs (Chafin 2000).
Ecology:
This perennial flower blooms in fall (Chafin 2000).
Populations:
Approximately 45 populations of this species are known in Georgia, seven in Florida, and reports
are not available for other states in which this species may or may not occur (Chafin 2007, 2000).
This plant might be extirpated in Alabama and the Carolinas. Total population size is unknown.
Population size at Fort Stewart, Georgia, which is thought to be the largest site for B.
atropurpurea, was estimated at between 10,000 and 44,000 in 1996 (Lincicome 1998).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) determined that B. atropurpurea has experienced large declines in the long
term, and that the species continues to decline rapidly.
Status:
Occurrences of this flower are widely separated and declining in number; the species is now
known only from historical locations in the Carolinas and Alabama. Its habitat is naturally rare and
has been widely destroyed by conversion to timber plantations or agriculture. NatureServe
(2008) ranks B. atropurpurea as critically imperiled in Florida and South Carolina, imperiled in
Georgia, and reports that it is likely extirpated from Alabama and North Carolina. It is statelisted as endangered in Florida and rare in Georgia.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss and degradation is the primary threat to this species. Wetland loss is widespread in
this species range. Wet savannahs are regularly drained and converted to timber plantations or
agricultural uses (NatureServe 2008). Fire suppression also threatens this species as it facilitates
the incursion of woody vegetation, excluding B. atropurpurea (Patrick et al. 1995). Vehicle traffic
related to military activities may also threaten some populations (Lincicome 1998).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 146

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Several populations in Georgia reportedly occur on preserved lands but it is not known what degree
of protection this affords (Chafin 2007). Though it is listed as endangered in Florida, this
designation confers no substantial regulatory protection to B. atropurpurea; no existing regulatory
mechanisms adequately protect this species.
References:
Chafin, L. G. 2000. Field guide to the rare plants of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory,
Tallahassee.
Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia.
Lincicome, D.A. 1998. The rare perennial Balduina atropurpurea (Asteraceae) at Fort Stewart,
Georgia. USACERL Technical Report 98/75 June 1998. US Army Corps of Engineers.
NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
October 20, 2009).
Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia: an information
manual on plants designated by the State of Georgia as endangered, threatened, rare, or unusual.
Georgia Dept. Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Natural Heritage
Program, Social Circle, Georgia. 218 pp + appendices.
Weakley, A.S. 2002. July 19-last update. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia: working draft of
July 19, 2002. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Online. Available:
http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/weakley_flora/default.htm. Accessed 2003, April 11.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 147

 Scientific Name:
Baptisia megacarpa
Common Name:
Apalachicola Wild Indigo
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This species is limited to a small range in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia; natural heritage records
indicate that it is present in Alabama’s Bibb, Bullock, Crenshaw, Henry, Lee, Macon,
Montgomery, Pike, and Talledega Counties, in Florida’s Gadsden, Holmes, and Liberty Counties,
and in Georgia’s Clay, Decatur, and Muscogee Counties (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant is found in mixed hardwood and hardwood-pine forests, most often upslope from
floodplains or streams or in ravines. It is usually associated with a canopy gap or other opening
(NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
The Apalachicola wild indigo is a perennial herb that may reach 4 ft. in height. It flowers in spring
and fruits in early summer (April – June) (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Since 1982, only 20 occurrences of this species have been verified, and few contain more than 50
individuals (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is declining in both numbers and range, largely
because habitat destruction has been accelerating in the past decade.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Apalachicola wild indigo as critically imperiled in Georgia, and
imperiled in Alabama and Florida. The species is listed as endangered by the state of Florida.
Habitat destruction:
Several factors threaten known occurrences of the Apalachicola wild indigo: land-use change and
resultant habitat loss and fragmentation, unsustainable forest management practices, and
anthropogenic alterations to regional hydrology (inundation of potential habitat and destruction of
existing populations) are among the most widely cited causes of this species’ decline (Southern
Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002, NatureServe 2008).
Overutilization:
This plant may be threatened by collection in some locations (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Apalachicola wild indigo – though it is
listed as endangered in Florida, this designation offers the species no substantial regulatory
protections.
Other factors:
Invasive species such as Japanese honeysuckle, Lonicera japonica, outcompete native species and
have a profound negative effect on the persistence of habitat specialists such as the Apalachicola
wild indigo (NatureServe 2008).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 148

 References:
Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada,
and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Kral, R. Baptisia megacarpa Chapm. ex Torr. Streamside wild indigo. Paper 229.
Schotz, A. Community Ecologist/Botanist, Alabama Natural Heritage Program. Personal
Communication.
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 149

 Scientific Name:
Bartonia texana
Common Name:
Texas Screwstem
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This plant is known from a very small range in east Texas: natural heritage records exist for
Hardin, Jasper, Nacagdoches, Newton, Polk, San Augustine, San Jacinto, and Tyler Counties,
though not all occurrences have been recently confirmed (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant occurs along the margins of woodland streams, bogs, and creek bottoms in swamp
tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) forest or baygall (Ilex coriacea) thickets, and often establishes on clumps
of sphagnum moss or other hospitable substrate (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This annual plant flowers in September and October (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Approximately 15 occurrences of this species are known, all of which are small and widely
scattered. It is estimated that there are fewer than 1,000 individual plants growing annually
(NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this rare species.
Status:
Texas screwstem is endemic to a small range within which few populations are known, all of
which are very small, and its habitat is threatened by several anthropogenic factors. NatureServe
(2008) ranks this species as imperiled.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss is the gravest threat to this species, and is primarily driven by timber harvesting,
urbanization and suburban sprawl, agricultural development, and grazing (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Populations are found on Big Thicket National Preserve and Sandylands Preserve, but may not be
appropriately protected. No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species or its
habitat.
References:
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
February 1, 2010)

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 150

 Scientific Name:
Blarina carolinensis shermani
Common Name:
Sherman's Short-tailed Shrew
G Rank:
T1
Range:
Sherman's short-tailed shrew has a very limited range in southern Florida from just north of Ft.
Myers south to the vicinity of Royal Palm (Benedict et al. 2006). It has not been detected at the
Ft. Myers type locality since 1955. It could occur at undiscovered sites in southwestern Florida
or it could be extinct (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (2001) provides the following description of this species'
habitat: "Generally found where there are abundant grasses at the edges of basin and depression
marshes and mesic flatwoods; may use other mesic communities or ruderal areas with at least a
moderate cover of grasses or forbs." Layne (1978) reports that this shrew occurs in drainage
ditches with dense grass cover and in mole runs.
Populations:
There are only one or two known occurrences of this subspecies (Benedict et al. 2006).
Population Trends:
No population information is available for this subspecies, which hasn't been detected since 1955.
Status:
Sherman's short-tailed shrew is critically imperiled (T1S1) (NatureServe 2008), and is a species
of greatest conservation need in Florida.
Habitat destruction:
Churchfield (1990) states that development threatens the existence of this shrew. Habitat
destruction may already have extirpated this subspecies (NatureServe 2008).
Disease or predation:
Layne (1992) states that predation by cats may have played a significant role in the reduction or
possible extinction of this shrew.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this shrew.
References:
Benedict, R. A., H. H. Genoways, and J. R. Choate. 2006. Taxonomy of short-tailed shrews
(genus Blarina) in Florida. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University (251):1-19.
Churchfield, S. 1990. The Natural History of Shrews. C. Helm/A & C Black. 178 pp.
Hamilton, W. J., Jr. 1955. A new subspecies of BLARINA BREVICAUDA from Florida. Proc.
Biol. Soc. Washington 68:37-40.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 151

 Layne, J. N. 1992. Sherman's short-tailed shrew BLARINA CAROLINENSIS SHERMANI. Pages
328-334 in S. R. Humphrey, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. I. Mammals.
Univ. Press of Florida, Gainesville. xxviii + 392 pp.
Layne, J. N., editor. 1978. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. 1. Mammals. State of
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. xx + 52 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 152

 Scientific Name:
Boltonia montana
Common Name:
Doll's-daisy
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The doll’s daisy is native to wetland habitat in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia
(NatureServe 2008). It is known in Sussex and Warren Counties in New Jersey, Dauphin County
in Pennsylvania, and Augusta County in Virginia (Digital Atlas of the Virginia Flora 2009).
Because this species was recently determined (2008) to be distinct from Boltonia asteroides,
historical records and population data are scarce.
Habitat:
The doll's daisy is found in sinkhole pond (vernal pool) habitats and along stream- and riverbanks
(NatureServe 2009, Minutes of the Rare Plant Forum French Creek State Park 2007).
Populations:
There are 6 to 7 extant occurrences throughout this species' range, and total population size is
unknown (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Population trends are unknown, but NatureServe (2008) reports that this species' habitat is
constantly under threat.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the doll's daisy is possibly extirpated from Pennsylvania,
critically imperiled in Virginia, and under review in New Jersey.
Habitat destruction:
The sinkhole habitat that Boltonia montana prefers is threatened by several factors, most notably
habitat loss or degradation caused by agricultural and residential development (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the doll’s daisy.
References:
Digital Atlas of the Virginia Flora: Boltonia montana. Accessed online August 4, 2009 <<
http://www.biol.vt.edu/digital_atlas/index.php?do=plant&plant=690>>
Minutes of the Rare Plant Forum at French Creek State Park. 2007. Accessed online August 4,
2009 <www.paconserve.org/assets/07rpf.doc>
Minutes of the Rare Plant Forum at French Creek State Park. 2007. Accessed online August 4,
2009 <www.paconserve.org/assets/07rpf.doc>

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 153

 NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 4, 2009).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 154

 Scientific Name:
Bouchardina robisoni
Common Name:
Bayou Bodcau Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Special Concern
Range:
This species is found in southwestern Arkansas, in Lafayette, Hempstead, Nevada and Columbia
counties, in Bodcau and Dorcheat Bayou basins (Robinson and Allen, 1995). The total range for
the Bayou Bodcau crayfish is less than 100-250 square km (less than about 40 to 100 square
miles)(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
According to NatureServe (2008), this species inhabits shallow, detritus-rich, sluggish, sandybottomed backwaters and small intermittent streams, or overflow ditches with aquatic vegetation.
It is apparently associated with aquatic vegetation, including Ludwiga sp., Utricularia sp. and
grasses as the dominants plants. It has been collected from burrows that are over three meters
deep (Robison and Allen, 1995). Hobbs (1977) reports that the species was found in a borrow
ditch along roadside with sitting water no more than 0.5 m deep. The ditch bottom was made up of
sandy clay covered by decaying leaves, and dominant adjacent trees were pines, oaks, and
hawthorns.
Ecology:
Hobbs (1977) says that B. robisoni exhibits strong sexual dimorphism.
Populations:
This species has extremely limited numbers, with between 1 and 5 populatoins and less than 1000
individuals (NatureServe 2008). Four very experienced collectors secured only 40 individuals in
2.5 hours, indicating that this species is quite rare even in its prime habitat.
Population Trends:
The population trend for this species in unknown (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This crayfish is listed as vulnerable by the American Fisheries Society (Taylor et al. 2007). It is
ranked as critically imperiled by NatureServe (2008).
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) states that this extremely rare species exists only in a tenuous habitat. The
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (2008) identifies habitat disturbance due to road construction,
hydrological alteration due to forestry activities, and toxins and contaminants due to road
construction as threats to this species' habitat.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 155

 References:
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. 2008. Aquatic and Terrestrial Crayfish Report. Available online
at www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/08crayfish.pdf, last accessed March 31, 2009.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1977. The crayfish Bouchardina robisoni, a new genus and species (Decapoda,
Cambaridae) from southern Arkansas. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
89(62): 733-742.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Robison, H.W. and R.T. Allen. 1995. Only in Arkansas: A Study of the Endemic Plants and
Animals of the State. University of Arkansas Press: Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 156

 Scientific Name:
Caecidotea cannula
Common Name:
A Cave Obligate Isopod
G Rank:
G2
Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that C. cannula has a range less than about 40 square miles. It is
known only from Alpena Cave No. 1, Glady Cave and Bowden Cave in Randolph Co. and Cave
Hollow Cave, Mill Run Cave and Harper Cave in Tucker Co. in West Virginia. Additional caves
containing the species may be found as more are surveyed.
Habitat:
C. cannula inhabits subterranean streams and pools under flat rocks (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
This cave obligate isopod is known from only 6 caves in 2 West Virginia Counties. The number
of individuals was estimated to be between 1,000 and 3,000 by the West Virginia Natural
Heritage Program in January 1991 (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available, but populations are assumed stable (Culver pers. comm. 1992
cited in NatureServe 2008).
Status:
According to NatureServe (2008), Caecidotea cannula is endemic to 6 caves in West Virginia and
is potentially vulnerable to changes in water flow and quality. Its status in West Virgnia is
critically imperiled. The State of West Virginia classifies it as a species of greatest conservation
need.
Habitat destruction:
The main threats to this species are any land use practices that negatively impact groundwater
quality and/or quantity. Alterations of water flow and both point and nonpoint-source pollution can
severely impact this community (Culver pers. comm. cited in NatureServe 2008). Caves also may
be threatened by increased recreational use. Alpena Cave No. 1 is near a proposed route for a
highway, which could increase pollution and threaten this species (NatureServe 2008). This
species occurs on National Forest land, making it vulnerable to pollution impacts from logging,
oil and gas drilling, and other approved projects on public lands.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which adequately protect this species. It is currently
receiving temporary protection from recreation because Cave Hollow Cave and other caves in the
Monongahela National Forest are subject to an emergency, one-year public closure to protect
populations of endangered bats (USFS 2009). Cave Hollow Cave is in Monongahela National
Forest and is protected by an eight-foot, chain-link fence at the entrance. C. cannula is a Regional
Forester Sensitive Species for Region 9 of the U.S. Forest Service. Pollution is the primary threat
to this species, and cave closure is not adequate to protect the water in the cave from impacts from
logging, development, etc.
Gating may be necessary if human visits are destructive. Both the surface and subsurface need to
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 157

 be protected. It is crucial to protect the watershed. Food enters the cave from surface streams and
References:
Culver, D. C. 1985. Trophic relationships in aquatic cave environments. Stygolagia 1:43-53.
Culver, Dr. David C., Department of Biology, American University, 4400 Mass. Ave. NW,
Washington DC, 20016 202-885-2180
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1983. How to Know the Freshwater Crustacea. Wm. C. Brown Co.
Publishers. Dubuque, Iowa. 277 pp.
Fitzpatrick, Joseph F., Jr. Department of Biological Scienc es, University of South Alabama,
Mobile, AL 36688. (205)46 0-6331.
Holsinger, J.R., R.A. Barody, and D.C. Culver. 1976. The invertebrate cave fauna of West
Virginia. West Virginia Speoleological Survey Bulletin, 7: 86 pp.
Lewis, J.J. 2001. Conservation assessment for Cannulate Cave Isopod (Caecidotea cannulus).
Report to the USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 9 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Steeves, H. R. III. 1963. Two new troglobitic asellids from West Virginia. American Midland
Naturalist 70(2):462-5.
U.S. Forest Service. April 27, 2009. Press Release: Forest Service Issues Cave And Mine
Closure Order To Protect Endangered Bat Species. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/allegheny/news/News_Releases_2009/0427_caves_mines_clos
ed_mary.pdf. Last accessed December 14, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 158

 Scientific Name:
Calamovilfa arcuata
Common Name:
Rivergrass
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This plant is known from Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Tennessee; natural heritage records
exist for Blount County, Alabama, Howard, Perry, and Scott Counties, Arkansas, Atoka,
McCurtain, and Pushmataha Counties, Oklahoma, and Cumberland, Morgan, and Scott Counties,
Tennessee, though it is now likely that the Alabama occurrence is extirpated (NatureServe 2008,
CPC 2009).
Habitat:
This plant grows in full sun along open gravel or cobble bars maintained by periodic flood
scouring where it roots in sandy substrate between rocks (Kral 1983, Keener 1999). Its habitat is
dominated by herbaceous perennials but if scouring is infrequent, it may be encroached upon by
woody shrubs such as hazel alder, Alnus serrulata, Henry's garnet, Itea virginica, and silky
dogwood, Cornus amomum (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This species is a perennial grass.
Populations:
There are approximately 44 known occurrences of this plant. Its distribution among states is not
reported, nor is population size (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that C. arcuata is experiencing moderate decline; some populations
appear to be stable, but others are threatened or have already been extirpated (Oklahoma
Biological Survey 1999).
Status:
This species may be extirpated iin Alabama, and though there are numerous remaining
occurrences, a majority are located along just a few river systems, and any major hydrological
changes would have an enormous impact on this species. NatureServe (2008) ranks C. arcuata as
critically imperiled in Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. It is state listed as
endangered in Tennessee, and was formerly a federal candidate species.
Habitat destruction:
Changes in water level, flow regime, or other factors what would interfere with the flood-scour
maintenance of C. arcuata's habitat are the greatest threats to this species' persistence. Sedimentgenerating activities may also be problematic, but are secondary to the importance of maintaining
natural flood and flow regimes (NatureServe 2008)
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 159

 References:
Center for Plant Conservation (CPC). 2009. Calamovilfa arcuata. Accessed online February 1,
2010
<<http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/collection/cpc_viewprofile.asp?CPCNum=667>>
Keener, B.R. 1999. Noteworthy Collections, Alabama. Castanea 64(4): 354-355.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 19, 2010).
Oklahoma Biological Survey. 1999. Website with information regarding Calamovilfa arcuata.
http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/calamov_arc.htm
Schmalzer, P. A., and H. R. DeSelm. 1982. Vegetation, endangered and threatened plants, critical
plant habitats and vascular flora of the Obed Wild and Scenic River. Unpubl. rep. to U. S. Dep.
Inter., Natl. Park Serv., Obed Wild and Scenic River. 2 Vol. 369 p., including appendix.
Taylor R.J. and C.E. Taylor. 1980. Calamovilfa arcuata status report. Endangered Species
Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 160

 Scientific Name:
Cambarellus blacki
Common Name:
Cypress Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
Cambarellus blacki has a range of less than 100 square km (less than about 40 square miles). It is
probably restricted to the northern two thirds of Escambia County, Florida, with possible shallow
penetration into Alabama (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This species is found in Cypress ponds among submergent and emergent vegetation (NatureServe
2008).
Populations:
This species is currently known from only one locality- a creek in Escambia Co. (Franz and Franz,
1990). The total count of this species is estimated at approximately 1000 - 2500 individuals.
Attempts at finding other populations have thus far been unsuccessful, but suitable habitat is still
relatively inaccessible.
Status:
The Cypress crayfish is known from only one locality and is ranked as critically imperiled by
NatureServe (2008). It is rated as Endangered by AFS and IUCN due to extremely few populations
and very limited range.
Habitat destruction:
According to NatureServe (2008) the Cypress crayfish is currently probably secure, but
expansion of nearby oil production activities could severely threaten the species, which is known
from a single location.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.
References:
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1983. A revision of the dwarf crawfishes (CAMBARIDAE,
CAMBARELLINAE). Journal of Crustacean Biology 266-277.
Franz, R. and S.E. Franz. 1990. A review of the Florida crayfish fauna, with comments on
nomenclature, distribution, and conservation. Florida Scientist, 53: 286-296.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Hobbs, H. H.,Jr. 1980. New dwarf crayfishes (Decapoda, Cambaridae) from Mexico and Florida.
Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 93:194-207.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 161

 Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 162

 Scientific Name:
Cambarellus diminutus
Common Name:
Least Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Cambarellus diminutus is apparently confined to Mobile County, Alabama, and George and
Jackson counties, Mississippi (Hobbs 1989).
Habitat:
The Least crayfish is found among vegetation in small to moderate blackwater streams, usually in
pine woods (NatureServe 2008). This species also invades ditches near sluggish streams. It is
tolerant of warm water, but prefers shaded areas (Hobbs 1989). It seems to prefer very sluggish
flow with submerged, at least in part, vegetation, and it will burrow during dry conditions.
Populations:
There are 11 known sites for this species, eight in Alabama and three in Mississippi. Abundance is
high in appropriate habitat.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species has declined by up to 30 percent in the short-term,
stating: "It has a small extent of occurrence (<8000 sq. km) and has a continuing decline in habitat
extent and quality due to dockland usage, agricultural intensification and urbanization."
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as vulnerable in Alabama and imperiled in Mississippi. The
State of Mississippi lists it as a Tier 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need. In Alabama it is a
Priority 2/High Conservation Concern species. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as
threatened by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is threatened by a "continuing decline in habitat
extent and quality due to dockland usage, agricultural intensification and urbanization. Even though
this species can be considered a generalist, its preference for temporary habitats consisting of
thick vegetation, leaves it sensitive to any habitat alterations. Further, with the continued pollution
associated with docklands and agriculture, it is not known when this will start to severely impact
populations. Due to the intensification of agriculture, the likelihood of oxbow side ponds
remaining long enough to be utilized by this species is uncertain. . . Mobile county is the third
most populated city in the southern USA, consisting of a large dockland areas which is intensively
used. This will be creating a substantial water pollution in this area of Mobile county, whilst also
polluting surrounding streams and ponds. Further, C. diminutus' use of oxbow side ponds is useful
for protection against predation, but these are only temporary habitats and therefore there must be
other similar habitats avaliable for this species to utilize once the oxbow side ponds have silted
up (Peterson et al., 1996). However, this species is somewhat tolerant of differing water and
habitat qualities to exist in these habitats (Hobbs, 1945). But, with the continued expansion of the
Mobile docklands usage and intensive agriculture, it is unknown how long it will be able to use
these habitats."
This species is also threatened by channelization. NatureServe (2008) reports that the Corps of
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 163

 Engineers is trying to iniate a project to channelize the lower Escatawpa River.
Other factors:
This species is threatened by water pollution (NatureServe 2008). There is also evidence that
another Cambarellus species may be expanding its range at the expense of this species
(NatureServe 2008).
References:
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1983. A revision of the dwarf crawfishes (CAMBARIDAE,
CAMBARELLINAE). Journal of Crustacean Biology 266-277.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil.
2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for
Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.
Schuster, G. A. and C.A. Taylor. 2004. Report on the crayfishes of Alabama: literature and
museum database review, species list with abbreviated annotations and proposed conservation
statuses. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report, 2004(12): 47 pp.
Schuster, G.A., C.A. Taylor, and J. Johansen. 2008. An annotated checklist and preliminary
designation of drainage distributions of the crayfishes of Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3):
493-504.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 164

 Scientific Name:
Cambarellus lesliei
Common Name:
Angular Dwarf Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
NatureServe (2008) states that this species is found in southwest Alabama (Baldwin, Mobile, and
Washington Cos.) and southeast Mississippi (George Co.) (Hobbs, 1989).
Habitat:
Cambarellus lesliei prefers slow to moderate current, as well as shady still water (NatureServe
2008). It will hide among submergent vegetation in streams and pools (Hobbs, 1989).
Populations:
Seventeen records of this species are known from Alabama near Mobile Bay (Alabama, Mobile,
Tombigbee drainages) (Mirarchi et al., 2004; appendix 1-2 pub. separately; Schuster and Taylor,
2004; Schuster et al., 2008). It is also known from George Co., Mississippi (NatureServe 2008).
It is believed that about two dozen total populations are extant.
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown.
Status:
This species us only known from four counties near Mobile Bay, AL, with about two dozen
records. IUCN lists this species as Vulnerable. The American Fisheries Society considers this
species to be Threatened. It is ranked as imperiled in Alabama and vulnerable in Mississippi by
NatureServe (2008). In Alabama it is considered to be a species of high conservation concern.
Habitat destruction:
According to the World Wildlife Federation (2009), this species may be threatened by
hydropower operations. The Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (2010a) reports
that the ephemeral ponds which support this species are highly threatened by agricultural
conversion, channel modification, impoundments, forestry, and invasive species. In the
Pascagoula drainage, aquatic species are highly threatened by forestry and invasive species, and
are moderately threatened by development, recreation, and feedlots (MDWFP 2010b).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No regulatory mechanisms protect this species, and no occurrences are protected.
References:
Fitzpatrick, J. F., Jr. & B. A. Laning. 1976. A new dwarf crawfish (Decapoda: Cambaridae:
Cambarellinae) from southwest Alabama and adjacent Mississippi. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington
89(9):137-146.
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1983. A revision of the dwarf crawfishes (CAMBARIDAE,
CAMBARELLINAE). Journal of Crustacean Biology 266-277.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 165

 Ftizpatrick, J.F., Jr. 2000. The conservation status of Mississippi crawfishes; Crustacea:
Decapoda: Cambaridae. The Proceedings of the Louisiana Academy of Sciences, pg. 25.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil.
2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for
Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.
Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. 2010a. Mississippi’s Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy: Lacustrine (Lentic) Communities. Accessed March 3, 2010 at:
http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Type%2011.pdf
Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 2010b. Mississippi's Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Streams. Accessed Feb. 1, 2010 at:
http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Type%20122.pdf
Schuster, G.A., C.A. Taylor, and J. Johansen. 2008. An annotated checklist and preliminary
designation of drainage distributions of the crayfishes of Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3):
493-504.
Taylor, C.A., M.L. Warren, J.F. Fitzpatrick, Jr., H.H. Hobbs III, R.F. Jezerinac, W.L. Pflieger, and
H.W. Robison. 1996. Conservation Status Of Crayfishes Of The United States And Canada.
Fisheries 21(4):25-38.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
World Wildlife Federation. 2009. Comments on Alabama Power Company’s Martin
Hydroelectric Project. Available online at
http://www.alabamapower.com/hydro/pdfs_martin/February%2017,%202009%20WWF%20Stu
dy%20Plan%20Comments.pdf. Last accessed June 13, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 166

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus bouchardi
Common Name:
Big South Fork Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Big South Fork crayfish is endemic and restricted to the Roaring Paunch Creek drainage
within the Big South Fork of the Cumberland drainage in Tennessee and Kentucky (Taylor and
Schuster, 2004). O'Bara (1988) reported it in Roaring Paunch Creek, Scotty County, TN. The total
range is less than 100-250 square km (less than about 40 to 100 square miles). The species' range
in Tennesee is restricted to two streams (Knoxville News-Sentinel, April 14, 2002).
Habitat:
Cambarus bouchardi is found in streams with rubble and moderate current (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports between 6 and 20 total occurrences of this species. There are
probably several populations, with around 22 localities recorded. A few occurrences could
possibly be lumped into populations (O'Bara, 1988). In Kentucky, Cambarus bouchardi is
restricted to Roaring Paunch Creek proper in McCreary Co. (Taylor and Schuster, 2004). A
recent Tennessee suvery by Williams et al. (2002), found the species in Perkins Creek proper
(type locality), a headwater tributary to Perkins Creek, and Roaring Paunch Creek, as well as from
3 new stream localities-Isham Creek, Jones Branch, and Otter Creek.
Status:
The Big South Fork crayfish is critically imperiled in Kentucky and Tennessee (NatureServe
2008). The State of Tennessee lists this species as Endangered and a Species of Greatest
Conservation Need. It was formerly listed as a Candidate 2 species by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The American Fisheries Society lists this species as Endangered due to its restricted
range. The U.S. Forest Service (2002) has designated Cambarus bouchardi as a Sensitive Species.
It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
Williams et. al (2002) report that habitat loss is a major concern. Siltation and polluted runoff
from logging and mining and habitat destruction from residential development are all indicated as
threats to this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species. It is state-listed in Tennessee,
but this confers no habitat protection. It is being considered for inclusion in a proposed
Cumberland Habitat Conservation Plan (Cumberland HCP 2006). This species is found on the
Daniel Boone National Forest, where it is a Forest Service Sensitive Species (USFS 2005).
Other factors:
Williams et al (2002) report that competition from nonnative crayfish is a potential problem.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 167

 References:
Cumberland HCP. 2006. Development Of A Habitat Conservation Plan For The Cumberlands
Region, Tennessee And Kentucky. Available online at
http://www.cumberlandhcp.org/files/cumberland-hcp-fy06-proposal.pdf. Last accessed August
16, 2009.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1970. New crayfishes of the genus CAMBARUS from Tennessee and Georgia
(Decapoda, Astsacidae). Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 83(23):241-260.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Knoxville News-Sentinel. “State surveys crayfish; Rare Big South Fork variety found in just two
streams.” April 14, 2002, Local & State; Pg. B1.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
O'Bara, C. J. 1987. Final report: Status Survey of the Big South Fork Crayfish, Cambarus
bouchardi. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 10 p.
O'Bara, C. J. 1988. The distribution of the Big South Fork crayfish, Cambarus bouchardi, with
general notes on its habitat. Trans. Kentucky Acad. Sci. 49:117-119.
Taylor, C.A. and G.A. Schuster. 2004. The Crayfishes of Kentucky. Illinois Natural History
Survey Special Publication, 28: viii + 210 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation
Management in the Appalachian Mountains. Page 19 of 41. Available online at
www.fs.fed.us/r8/planning/vmeis/documents/SVMEIS_Appal.pdf. Last accessed June 3, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Regional Forester Sensitive Species, Regions 8 And 9. Available
online at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480093cd9&dispositi
on=attachment&contentType=pdf. Last accessed June 30, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 168

 Williams, C.E., R.D. Bivens, and B.D. Carter. 2002. A survey of the Big South Fork crayfish
(Cambarus bouchardi). Report to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Tennessee, April
2002. 11 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 169

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus catagius
Common Name:
Greensboro Burrowing Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Cambarus catagius is known from the PeeDee and Cape Fear river drainages in Guilford,
Randolph, Montgomery, and Davidson counties, North Carolina (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Cambarus catagius is a primary burrower which spends most it its life cycle in gallery systems in
the subsurface water table (NatureServe 2008). McGrath (1994) indicates that this species was
discovered on East Whittington Street in Greensboro, NC in people’s yards. It was first collected
from sandy clay soils with water table 5-60 cm deep.
Populations:
The Greensboro burrowing crayfish is known from 16 localities (McGrath 1994). More localities
are likely to be found. LeGrand et al. (2006) cite this species as occurring in the Greensboro
area to Uwharries in Davidson, Guilford, Montgomery, and Randolph Cos., North Carolina.
NatureServe (2008) estimates 6-20 populations with a total of 1000 - 2500 individuals.
Population Trends:
In the short term, NatureServe (2008) believes this species has a stable population.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled. The State of North Carolina considers C.
catagius to be a Species of Special Concern. It was a Federal C-2 Candidtate Species until that list
was abolished. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as threatened by the American Fisheries
Society.
Habitat destruction:
Cambarus catagius occurs in in Abbotts Creek and Pounders Fork which flow into High Rock
Reservoir. Both streams are part of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Drainage that is impounded by
dams of Alcoa Power Generating Inc. The on-going effects of these impoundments is unknown.
McGrath (1994) reports that this species' known range is restricted and impacted by urban
development.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
C. catagius occurs in the Uwharrie National Forest in North Carolina, but this does not confer
regulatory protection to the species or its habitat. No existing mechanisms adequately protect this
species.
Other factors:
The Greensboro burrowing crayfish is potentially threatened by an invasive species, Procambarus
clarkii, which was observed in upper High Rock Reservoir near the mouth of South Potts Creek and
north in the Yadkin River (Alcoa 2006).
According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (2000): “Nonindigenous crayfishes

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 170

 can affect natives via competition, predation, genetic dilution, and by serving as disease vectors.
Further, introductions of nonindigenous crayfishes can enhance the negative effects of environmental
change on native species because non-natives are often more tolerant to environmental degradation.
Lodge et al. (2000a) consider nonindigenous crayfish introductions to be the single greatest threat to
native crayfish biodiversity worldwide. In Europe, nonindigenous crayfishes have contributed to serious
declines and even local extinctions of its 5 native species. In several areas of North America,
combinations of environmental degradation and introductions of non-native crayfishes have led to
declines in native species, and to the extinction of at least one native crayfish in northern California
(Lodge et al. 2000a). During recent decades, at least 3 exotic crayfish species have been introduced into
North Carolina; therefore, we are concerned about potential impacts to our ecosystems and native
crayfish species.”
According to the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (2006): “The red swamp crayfish has
been introduced to South Carolina and has been observed at several locations in the southeastern plains
and coastal plain, but it is unclear how widespread it is in the state. The lack of survey work since its
introduction and the difficulty distinguishing the red swamp crayfish from a native catfish have made it
particularly difficult to determine the extent of its introduced range. In North Carolina, it has become
established in all drainages in the coastal plain and eastern piedmont plateau and appears to have
extirpated all the native crayfish at one location (Cooper 2003). Introduced crayfish are thought to be the
biggest threat to native crayfish species (Lodge et al. 2000 a,b) and the risk to our native species is great
if further introductions or extensive spread on non-indigenous crayfish occurs.”
References:
Alcoa Power Generating Inc, 2006. License Application, Yadkin Hydroelectric Project
FERC No. 2197. Exhibit E.3, Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources. Available online at
www.alcoa.com/yadkin/en/pdf/documents/ExhibitE.3.pdf. Last accessed June 14, 2009.
Cooper, J.E. 2003. A report on adventive crayfishes in North Carolina. A report prepared for the
Subcommittee on Exotic Species of the Non-game Advisory
Committee to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 7 pp.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich and J. Skurdal. 2000b. Reducing impacts of exotic
crayfish introductions: new policies needed. Fisheries. 25(8):21-23.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000a. Nonindigenous crayfishes
threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: Lessons from Europe. Fisheries 25(8):7-20.
McGrath, C. 1994. Status Survey for the Greensboro Burrowing Crayfish (Cambarus
(Depressicambarus) catagius). Final Report. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ashville, North Carolina. 14 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 171

 McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien, A.C.
Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard, E.A.
Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R. Lemaitre, R.F.
Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M. Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W.
Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte, F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling,
G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from
the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2000. Proposal for Status Inventory of Uncommon
Crayfish In North Carolina. Available online at
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/nccrayfishes/craysurveyproposal.html. Last
accessed June 5, 2009.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Coastal Plain Aquatics fact sheet. Available
online at www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/habitat/CoastalPlainAquatics.pdf. Last accessed May 2, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 172

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus chasmodactylus
Common Name:
New River Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G4
Currently Stable
Range:
The New River crayfish is endemic to the New River drainage system, from the upper reaches of
the Greenbrier River in Pocahontas and Monroe counties, West Virginia, south through Virginia
to Alleghany, Ashe and Watauga counties, North Carolina.
Habitat:
Preferred habitat for C. chasmodaytylus is under and between rocks in unsilted, cool, swiftly
moving streams with rocky riffle areas away from the shore, often in larger, turbulent streams.
Ecology:
In general crayfish occupy a small home range, as reported by NatureServe (2008). They are
subject to predation by mammals, birds and herptiles. Helms and Creed (2005) found no
influence of Cambarus chasmodactylus and coexisting Orconectes cristavarius (and associated
differences in diet) on sediment accumulation and benthic invertebrate populations in a large river
in North Carolina. Fortino and Creed (2006) found that in the headwaters of the South Fork of the
New River (Watauga Co., North Carolina), “C. chasmodactylus, is the dominant crayfish species
in third-order streams although C. bartonii is still present and occasionally co-dominant.”
Populations:
Jezerinac et al. (1995) recorded this species from 33 localities. Total population is thought to
number at least 2500 individuals.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) states that this species is declining in the short term (decline of 10-30
percent). Prior to the 1930's the species was apparently common in the New River, but now
specimens can only be found in the Greenbriar River and other tributaries. There is developmental
pressure on these tributaries and with increasing levels of siltation appear to be adding to the
species decline.
Status:
Cambarus chasmodactylus is apparently vulnerable to degradation of habitat, and appears to be
declining as watersheds are developed. The status of C. chasmodactylus in WV, VA, and NC is
vulnerable (NatureServe 2010). It was also a Class 2 Federal Candidate species until that list was
abolished.
Habitat destruction:
The New River crayfish is threatened by habitat loss and degradation from several sources. Because it
requires lotic waters of considerable size, impoundments eliminate its required riffle habitat (Cooper and
Cooper 1977). Its apparent preference for large streams could prevent its establishment in smaller
headwaters if displaced from larger waters by impoundment. Appropriate habitat for this species is
already limited in the Virginia and West Virginia portions of its range, and there are "other apparent
encroachments on the few known populations in those states" (Cooper and Cooper 1977).
NatureServe (2010) states that the species is no longer common in the Green River, and concerning the

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 173

 tributaries where it still occurs, states: "there is developmental pressure on these tributaries and with
increasing levels of siltation appear to be adding to the species decline."
Concerning the fragility of this species, NatureServe (2010) states: "New River riffle crayfish
populations appear to be seriously impacted by siltation and structures that disrupt water flow. The
populations are geographically isolated and vulnerable to localized destructive events which may cause
local extinction with little chance of later natural recolonization."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2010) reports that no occurrences of this declining species are appropriately protected.
References:
Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson, and J.B. Funderburg (eds.). 1977. Endangered and threatened plants
and animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North
Carolina. 444 pp.
Cooper, M. R., and J. E. Cooper. 1977. CAMBARUS (HIATICAMBARUS)
CHASMODACTYLUS James, New River riffle crayfish. Pages 204-6 in Cooper, J. E., S. S.
Robinson, and J. B. Funderburg (editors). Endangered and threatened plants and animals of North
Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, Virginia.
Fortino, K. and R.P. Creed Jr. 2007. Abiotic factors, competition or predation: what determines
the distribution of young crayfish in a watershed? Hydrobiologia (2007) 575:301–314.
Helms, B.S. and R.P. Creed. 2005. The effects of 2 coexisting crayfish on an Appalachian river
community. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24(1): 113-122.
Hobbs, H. H. Jr. 1969. Crayfishes. Pages 95-143 in P. C. Holt (editor). Part I: Invertebrates, in
The distributional history of the biota of the southern Appalachians. VPI, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Hobbs, H. H. Jr. 1972. Biota of freshwater ecosystems. Pages 120-1 in Identificational Manual
No. 9: Crayfishes (Astacidae) of North and Middle America. EPA.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1974. A checklist of the North American and middle American crayfishes
(Decapoda: Astacidae and Cambari dae). Smithsonian Contrib. to Zool. 166:1-161.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Hobbs, Jr., Horton H. 1976. Crayfishes (Astacidae) of North and Middle America. Biological
Methods Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 173 p.
James, H. A. 1966. Range and variations of subspecies of CAMBARUS LONGULUS (Decapoda:
Astacidae). Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 119:1-24.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 174

 Jezerinac, R. F., G. W. Stocker, and D. C. Tarter. 1995. The Crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae)
cause local extinction with little chance of later natural recolonization."of West Virginia. Bulletin of the
Ohio Biological Survey, Vol. 10, No. 1. Ohio Biological
Survey, College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University, and Nongame Wildlife and
Natural Heritage Programs, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio. 193
pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000a. Nonindigenous crayfishes
threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: Lessons from Europe. Fisheries 25(8):7-20.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2000. Proposal for Status Inventory of
Uncommon Crayfish In North Carolina. Available online at
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/nccrayfishes/craysurveyproposal.html.
Last accessed June 5, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 175

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus chaugaensis
Common Name:
Chauga Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Chauga crayfish is Endemic to tributaries of the Savannah River in a two county area: Oconee
Co., South Carolina, and Rabun County, Georgia (Eversole and Foltz, 1993). LeGrand et al.
(2006) also cite streams within the Savannah drainage in Jackson, Macon, and Transylvania Co.,
North Carolina.
Habitat:
The Georgia Museum of Natural History (2008) states that this species lives within fast-moving
streams with rocky substrates.
Populations:
According to NatureServe, there are between 6 and 20 total populations of Cambarus chaugensis.
It was recorded from one location in Rabun County, Georgia, and 18 localities in Oconee County,
South Carolina. LeGrand et al. (2006) also cite streams in Savannah drainage in Jackson, Macon,
and Transylvania Co., North Carolina. Eversole and Jones (2004) include tributaries of the
Savannah River in Oconee Co., South Carolina, and Rabun Co., Georgia; but most abundant in
South Carolina in the Chauga River drainage. The total population is between 1000 and 2500
individuals.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Georgia, and imperiled in North
and South Carolina. North Carolina has classified this species as Special Concern.
The State of South Carolina list it as a Highest Conservation Priority species (SCDNR 2005).
AFS now considers this species as threatened (Taylor et al 2007). The U.S. Forest Service (2002)
has designated Cambarus chaugensis as a Sensitive Species.
Habitat destruction:
This species is threatened by habitat degradation primarily from development. According to the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (2001), concerning Cambarus chaugensis: "Until
recently, the North Carolina portion of the Savannah River Basin has remained relatively
undeveloped and pristine. Currently, the area seems to be developing at a higher rate than in the
past, with tourist attractions such as the towns of Highlands, Cashiers, and Sapphire, the newly
established Gorges State Park, and Lake Toxaway. Some timber cutting in the region may also
affect habitat and stream quality."
The Georgia Museum of Natural History (2008) states that "Water quality degradation, pollution
and habitat destruction pose serious threats to this and all species of crayfish in the Southeast."
According to SCDNR (2005): "Physical alteration of habitat also represents a challenge to the
survival of crayfish. Some aquatic crayfishes are quite adaptable and can live in ponds, impoundments
and roadside ditches, while others are more sensitive to habitat alteration. Some crayfishes are oxygen
regulators and are able to increase ventilation rates in response to reduced oxygen conditions, while

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 176

 others, the oxygen conformers, are unable to do this (Hobbs 1991). Therefore, some species are better
equipped to survive when the flow of water slows and oxygen levels decline. Some species… have been
eliminated from parts of their range as a result of damming activities associated with reservoir
construction. Channelization and dredging can also be very detrimental to aquatic crayfish that require
rocks, crevices or tree roots along undercut banks as hiding places (Hobbs and Hall 1974). In general,
crayfish are not as sensitive to siltation as some aquatic invertebrates such as mussels, but severe
siltation has caused declines in or the extirpation of many populations of crayfish (Hobbs and Hall
1974).
Pollution has been known to eliminate crayfish from streams. Ortmann (1909) noted the
extirpation of crayfish from some sections of streams and rivers due to mining and oil refineries.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to USFS (2005) and NatureServe (2008), most of range of this species falls within the
Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia, the Sumter National Forest in South Carolina, and the
Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina. It is a Forest Service Sensitive Species (USFS 2005),
but this designation confers only discretionary protection and does not ensure habitat protection
for this species. For example, the U.S. Forest Service is conducting herbicide-based vegetation
management in the range of this species without surveys or species-level analysis (U.S. Forest
Service 2008).
Other factors:
This species may be threatened by invasive crayfish species. According to the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (2009): “Nonindigenous crayfishes can affect natives via
competition, predation, genetic dilution, and by serving as disease vectors. Further, introductions
of nonindigenous crayfishes can enhance the negative effects of environmental change on native
species because non-natives are often more tolerant to environmental degradation. Lodge et al.
(2000a) consider nonindigenous crayfish introductions to be the single greatest threat to native
crayfish biodiversity worldwide. In Europe, nonindigenous crayfishes have contributed to serious
declines and even local extinctions of its 5 native species. In several areas of North America,
combinations of environmental degradation and introductions of non-native crayfishes have led to
declines in native species, and to the extinction of at least one native crayfish in northern
California (Lodge et al. 2000a). During recent decades, at least 3 exotic crayfish species have
been introduced into North Carolina; therefore, we are concerned about potential impacts to our
ecosystems and native crayfish species.”
Similarly, SCDNR (2005) reports that: "The arrival of introduced species is probably the greatest
challenge to crayfish (Lodge et al. 2000 a,b). The ranges and abundances of many native crayfish
may have been reduced by invasive crayfish, both in the United States and in Europe (Lodge et al.
2000a; Hobbs et al. 1989).
Prevention of future introductions is most likely the only effective way to deal with the challenges
caused by nonnative crayfish. No methods for eliminating invasive species without also harming
native species are currently available. Even if effective biological control methods are developed,
preventing introductions will still be much easier than eradicating an established species. Lodge et
al. (2000b) proposed federal legislation that, if enacted and enforced, would drastically reduce the
risk of future introductions. They include banning the use of live crayfishes as bait, and adopting a
'white list' approach for the sale of all crayfish in the aquarium, garden pond and educational trade."
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 177

 Crayfish are harmed by a variety of insecticides, herbicides and industrial chemicals (Eversole et
al. 1996). Juvenile crayfish are generally about four times as sensitive to water borne pollution
than adults; early instars are about three times as sensitive as juveniles (Eversole and Sellers
1996). There is little knowledge of the differences in sensitivity to toxins among species.
Nutrient enrichment is less likely to harm crayfish than other aquatic life because they are
omnivorous and can act as scavengers as well as primary and secondary consumers. Hobbs and
Hall (1974) noted several casual observations in which crayfish were actually more abundant
downstream of areas with large amounts of garbage or animal remains. Enrichment may be
harmful to crayfish, however, when it results in oxygen depletion (Hobbs and Hall 1974).
Pollution of groundwater may impact terrestrial burrowers, because they inhabit water trapped in
their burrows."
References:
Cooper, J. E., A. L. Braswell, and C. McGrath. 1998. Noteworthy distributional records for
crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in North Carolina. The Journal of the Elisha Mitchell
Scientific Society 114(1):1-10.
Eversole, A.G. and B.C. Sellers. 1996. Comparison of relative crayfish toxicity values.
Freshwater Crayfish. 11:274-285.
Eversole, A.G. and D.R. Jones. 2004. Key to the crayfish of South Carolina. Unpublished report.
Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. 43 pp.
Eversole, A.G. and J.W. Foltz. 1993. Habitat relationships of two crayfish species in a mountain
stream. Freshwater Crayfish, 9: 300-309.
Eversole, A.G., J.M. Whetstone and B.C. Sellers. 1996. Handbook of relative acute toxicity
values for crayfish. S. C. Sea Grant Consortium, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. 8 pp.
Georgia Museum of Natural History. 2008. Web page on Cambarus chaugensis. Available online
at
http://naturalhistory.uga.edu/~GMNH/gawildlife/index.php?page=speciespages/ai_species_page
&key=cchaugaensis. Last accessed June 2, 2009.
Hobbs, H.H. III. 1991. Decapoda. Pages 823-858. In: Ecology and classifi cation of North
American freshwater invertebrates, J. Thorp and A.P. Covich, eds. Academic Press. New York,
New York. 911 pp.
Hobbs, H.H. Jr. and E.T. Hall, Jr. 1974. pages 195-214. In: Pollution ecology of freshwater
invertebrates, C.W. Hart, Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller, eds. Academic Press. New York, New York. 389
pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 178

 Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 318:
1-549.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich and J. Skurdal. 2000b. Reducing impacts of exotic
crayfish introductions: new policies needed. Fisheries. 25(8):21-23.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000a. Nonindigenous crayfishes
threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: Lessons from Europe. Fisheries 25(8):7-20.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2001. Crayfish Survey Results. Available
online at http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/nccrayfishes/survey_results.html.
Last accessed June 2, 2009.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2000. Proposal for Status Inventory of
Uncommon Crayfish In North Carolina. Available online at
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/nccrayfishes/craysurveyproposal.html.
Last accessed June 5, 2009.
Ortmann, A.E. 1909. The destruction of the fresh-water fauna in western Pennsylvania.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 48(191):90-111.
Prins, R. and H. H. Hobbs, Jr. 1972. A new crayfish of the subgenus Puncticambarus from the
Savannah River drainage with notes on Cambarus (P.) reburrus Prins (Decapoda, Astacidae).
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 84(47):411-420.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2005. South Carolina Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2005-2010. Available online at
http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/pdfs/action_plans/sc_action_plan.pdf. Last Accessed August
3, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 179

 States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation
Management in the Appalachian Mountains. Page 19 of 41. Available online at
www.fs.fed.us/r8/planning/vmeis/documents/SVMEIS_Appal.pdf. Last accessed June 3, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Regional Forester Sensitive Species, Regions 8 And 9. Available
online at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480093cd9&dispositi
on=attachment&contentType=pdf. Last accessed June 30, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Vegetation Control: Non-Native Invasive Species and Shortleaf Pine
Restoration Release on the Chattooga River Ranger District,
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest: Banks, Habersham, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, Union and
White Counties. 62 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 180

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus coosawattae
Common Name:
Coosawattae Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Skelton (2008) states that the species "is known only from the Coosawattee River system in
Gilmer County, Georgia. Records are from streams and rivers upstream of Carter’s Lake and are
within the Blue Ridge physiographic province."
Habitat:
Cambarus coosawattae is found in moderately flowing streams with rubble bottoms; it appears
mostly in riffle areas, as described by NatureServe (2008). Skelton (2008) states that "[a]dults are
typically found under rocks in relatively fast currents within streams. Juveniles may be found in
leaves or woody debris in slower moving water."
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates fewer than 5 occurrences of this species, stating: "Hobbs (1981)
listed 11 localities and Schuster (2001) found it at the 18 sites (6 of them Hobbs' original sites)
in Gilmer and Pickens Cos. all within a limited range and restricted to the Elljay and Cartecay
Rivers and their tributaries although Hobbs (1981) also reported from the Coosawattee River
proper but this site has not been resurveyed."
Population Trends:
Skelton (2008) reports that "populations at collection locations were apparently secure during a
survey conducted in 2001."
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled. It is listed as Endangered by the
state of Georgia and by the American Fisheries Society. Its habitat is being rapidly developed.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species' range has been severely fragmented by reservoir
construction (Carters Lake). The Coosawattee watershed has also experienced a large increase in
residential development in recent years, and over 100,000 acres of forest have been allocated for
residential building to be completed by 2030 (White 2009). The watershed also contains many
confined animal feed operations scattered in the headwaters above Carter's Lake that can
potentially impact habitat.
According to Skelton (2008) "[t]he small range of this species and the high development rates
within that range are significant threats to the Coosawattee crayfish. Heavy sedimentation
resulting from poor development and land management practices may cover substrates and other
daytime hiding places on which crayfishes rely to avoid predation. . . [c]onserving populations of
the Coosawattee crayfish will require general watershed level protection measures, including the
protection of riparian zones, control of sediment and nutrient runoff from farms and construction
sites, and limiting the amount of impervious cover (e.g., pavement) within occupied watersheds."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 181

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) states that several populations of Cambarus coosawattae occur in the
Chattahoochee National Forest, but this does not protect the species from habitat degradation. It is
listed as endangered in Georgia, but this designation provides no protection for the species'
habitat which is being rapidly developed.
Other factors:
Skelton (2008) states that the introduction of non-native crayfishes is a threat to all native
crayfishes.
References:
Hobbs, Horton H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contrib. to Zool. 318:1549.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Schuster, G.A. 2001. A study of the current status of two species of crayfishes, Cambarus
coosawattae, and Cambarus speciosus, both endemic to the Coosawattee River system, in
northern Georgia. Final Report, Georgia Forest Watch, Ellijay, Georgia. 9 pp.
Skelton, C.E. 2008. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Species account for Cambarus
coosawattae. Available online at
www.georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/cambarus_coosawattae.pdf. Last
accessed April 26, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 182

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus cracens
Common Name:
Slenderclaw Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered
Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the range of the Slenderclaw crayfish is 250-1000 square km
(about 100-400 square miles). In Alabama, it is known questionably from the Black Warrior,
Coosa and Tallapoosa River systems and described from the Tennessee River system (Hobbs,
1989; Mirarchi et al., 2004; in appendix 1-2 published separately). Schuster et al. (2008) cite only
the Tennessee River system for Alabama.
Habitat:
C. cracens is found in clear, sluggish streams flowing over bedrock and sand (NatureServe 2008).
The water is generally shallow (less than two feet). According to NatureServe (2008), this species
was not collected outside rock-littered areas of streams. According to Bouchard and Hobbs
(1976), C. cracens was first found in a "clear stream, some 35 to 40 feet wide and mostly less
than one foot deep, flows rather sluggishly over a bed-rock and sandy bottom littered with large
rocks. Shading the shore line are Platanus occidentalis, Liriodendron tulipifera, Quercus sp., and
Pinus sp."
Populations:
This species was known from seven historical sites, but has been recently detected at only one of
them (NatureServe 2010).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2010) reports a very rapid short term decline of 50-70 percent for this species. It
was only found recently at one historical sites of all historical known sites (7 total) (G. Schuster,
C. Taylor, pers. comm., 2009 cited in NatureServe 2010). NatureServe (2010) states: "repeated
survey efforts have only uncovered extant populations in one or two sites (decline greater than 80
percent and ongoing)."
Status:
The State of Alabama lists this species as a Priority 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It
is ranked by NatureServe (2008) as critically imperiled and by the American Fisheries Society as
endangered.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2010) reports that this species is highly, substantially, and imminently threatened,
stating: "Historical and current stresses are the same: impoundment of the Tennessee River.
Reasons for decline (based on current versus historic records) are not known but the species is
absent from nearly all historical sites where it was formerly known (G. Schuster, C. Taylor,
2009)."
According to the World Wildlife Federation (2009), C. cracens is an Alabama Species of
Greatest Conservation Need in the Tallapoosa drainage, and the species or its habitat may be
impacted by hydropower operations.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 183

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this declining and highly threatened species.
References:
Bouchard, R. W. and H. H. Hobbs, Jr. 1976. A new subgenus and two new species of crayfishes
of the genus Cambarus (Decapoda: Cambaridae) from the southeastern United States.
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 224. 15 pp.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil.
2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for
Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.
Schuster, G. A. and C.A. Taylor. 2004. Report on the crayfishes of Alabama: literature and
museum database review, species list with abbreviated annotations and proposed conservation
statuses. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report, 2004(12): 47 pp.
Schuster, G.A., C.A. Taylor, and J. Johansen. 2008. An annotated checklist and preliminary
designation of drainage distributions of the crayfishes of Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3):
493-504.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
World Wildlife Federation. 2009. Comments on Alabama Power Company’s Martin
Hydroelectric Project. Available online at
http://www.alabamapower.com/hydro/pdfs_martin/February%2017,%202009%20WWF%20Stu
dy%20Plan%20Comments.pdf. Last accessed June 13, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 184

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus cryptodytes
Common Name:
Dougherty Plain Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Dougherty Plain cave crayfish occurs in the aquifer of the
Dougherty Plain (Marianna Lowlands), from Decatur County, Georgia, to Jackson County,
Florida, USA. All known sites can be enclosed by 50 km circle, and all lie within the Apalachicola
River basin. Skelton (2008) states that "The species is currently known from Dougherty and
Decatur counties in southwestern Georgia and Jackson and Washington counties, in the Panhandle
of Florida. It almost certainly occurs in Mitchell and Baker counties, Georgia, as these counties
lie between Dougherty and Decatur Counties, in southwest Georgia."
Habitat:
Cambarus cryptodytes lives in subterranean fresh waters, specifically low energy caves in
carbonate rocks. It has been taken from wells, sinks, shallow caves, and spring caves (NatureServe
2008).
Ecology:
According to Purvis and Opsahl (2005), C. cryptodytes has a lower metabolic rate than surface
crayfish, so is more able to survive in low oxygen habitats. They found that troglobytic crayfish
can live as long as 16 years, much longer than surface crayfish. However, they reproduce
infrequently and so the population of this species is not resilient.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) states that there are between 6 and 20 populations with less than 1000
individuals in total. There are approximately 15-20 EOs, but these all are relatively close and may
even be interconnected.
Status:
According to NatureServe (2008), Cambarus cryptodytes is narrowly endemic. While there are a
moderate number of occurences, they all lie within a small, county-sized area. In Florida this
species has a status of imperiled, and in Georgia it is critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008). The
State of Georgia lists the Dougherty Plains cave crayfish as Threatened (Skelton 2008). Florida
lists it as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as
threatened by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are multiple threats to water quality throughout this species' range,
which is largely an agricultural region. The aquifer may be contaminated with EDB and other chemicals.
Unregulated spelunking and sewage leaks pose additional potential threats. The habitat of Cambarus
cryptodytes is unable to support large numbers of macrocrustacea.
According to Dickson and Franz (1980) “[b]ecause troglobitic organisms have evolved in relatively
constant environments, many of their adaptations may be highly specialized allowing existence only
under prevailing ambient conditions. The reduction of O2 consumption and energy turnover of gill
tissues reported in this study gives evidence of the highly specialized nature of physiological and

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 185

 biochemical adaptations in troglobitic organisms. Because of these adaptations troglobitic species may
be susceptible to subtle changes in water quality.”
Skelton (2008) states that "Small range size makes this species vulnerable to extirpation. Excessive
water withdrawals from the Floridian Aquifer reduce the amount of habitat for the Dougherty Plain cave
crayfish. Runoff of pesticides and nutrients from agricultural areas is also a threat."
According to Walsh (2001):
“Perhaps the most serious potential threat to Florida’s hypogean and spring faunas is ground-water
pollution and/or saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and aquifer resources are increasingly
tapped. Streever (1992, 1995) reported on a kill and post-kill recovery of the troglobitic Santa Fe Cave
Crayfish (Procambarus erythrops) and three troglophiles that may have been due to physicochemical
changes associated with flushing of contaminants and/or Suwannee River water during a flood event. In
recent years, there have been notable increases in contaminants and nutrients within some Florida
ground-water sources (e.g., Katz and others, 1999). Eutrophication in spring habitats may result in
greater algal growth, increased turbidity, and physicochemical and biological changes that can be
detrimental to native species.”
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (2008) states that Florida’s freshwater springs system is
threatened. Major causes of problems in springs include landscaping, development and urban sprawl,
water consumption, dumping in sinkholes, agriculture and livestock, golf courses and other recreation.
These threats could be avoided by state acquisition of the springs, or through comprehensive land use
planning.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to NatureServe (2008) one site containing the Dougherty Plain cave crayfish is gated, at
Florida Caverns State Park. Also,the Marianna Bat Cave (also known as Judges Cave) was
purchased by state of Florida and The Nature Conservancy. This cave is now fenced.This crayfish is
listed as threatened by the state of Georgia, but this designation does not provide habitat
protection.
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Dickson, G.W. and R. Franz. 1980. Respiration Rates, ATP Turnover and Adenylate Energy
Charge in Excised Gills of Surface and Cave Crayfish. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology A, 65:4(375-379).
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An Implementation
Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed June 5,
2009.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ. Presses of
Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 186

 Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas in
Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 318:
1-549.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr., H.H. Hobbs III., and M.A. Daniels. 1977. A review of the troglobitic decapod
crustaceans of the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 244: 1-183.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Purvis, K.M and S.P. Opsahl. 2005. A Novel Technique for Invertebrate Trapping in Groundwater
Wells Identifies New Populations of the Troglobitic Crayfish, Cambarus cryptodytes, in
Southwest Georgia, USA. Journal of freshwater ecology 20:2 pg:361 -366.
Purvis, K.M and S.P. Opsahl. 2005. A Novel Technique for Invertebrate Trapping in Groundwater
Wells Identifies New Populations of the Troglobitic Crayfish, Cambarus cryptodytes, in
Southwest Georgia, USA. Journal of Freshwater Ecology. 20:2 pp:361 -366.
Skelton, C.E. 2008. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Species account for Cambarus
cryptodytes. Available online at
www.georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/cambarus_cryptodytes.pdf. Last
accessed May 8, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky (ed.).
U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida, February 13-16,
2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 187

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus cymatilis
Common Name:
Conasauga Blue Burrower
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
According to NatureServe (2008) the range of Cambarus cymatilis is less than 100 square km
(less than about 40 square miles). It is known only from Murray County, Georgia, and a seepage
area along Mill Creek in Bradley County, Tennessee (Hobbs, 1981). These locations are within 15
miles of each other. Skelton (2008) reports that this species is found in "the Conasauga and
Hiwassee river systems in the Ridge and Valley physiographic province in northwestern Georgia
and southeastern Tennessee. In Georgia, it is has been collected from only about 5 locations,
most around Chatsworth in Murray County."
Habitat:
The Conasauga Blue burrower is found in elaborate burrows in open grassy areas with a high water
table, commonly burrowing around houses and flower gardens (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are 1-5 populations with between 1000 - 2000 total
individuals. The first collection of this species produced 6 specimens in 1 hour; apparently it is
not rare where it occurs.
Status:
The Conasauga Blue burrower has a status of critically imperiled in both Georgia and Tennessee
(NatureServe 2008). Small populations are known from only two nearby places (NatureServe
2008). Tennessee and Georgia both classify this species as Endangered. The AFS status of
Endangered is based on the species' extremely limited range. The U.S. Forest Service (2002) has
designated Cambarus cymatilis as a Sensitive Species. It is
ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
Current threats to Cambarus cymatilis include loss of habitat due to development for home sites,
according to NatureServe (2008). Skelton (2008) reports that for this species, the "small range
size makes this species vulnerable to extirpation. About one-half of the known populations of this
species occur within the Chatsworth city limits. One location is in a neighborhood, and the other
was along a street that has now been paved over." Cambarus cymatilis occurs in the project area
for a new powerline in Gordon and Whitfield Counties, Georgia, proposed by the Tennessee
Valley Authority. Construction and maintenance of this powerline has the potential to disrupt
aquatic ecosystems occupied by C. cymatilis (TVA 2007). The U.S. Forest Service is conducting
herbicide-based vegetation management in the range of this species without surveys or specieslevel analysis (U.S. Forest Service 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Skelton (2008) states that there is a single population of Cambarys cymatilis on state-owned
property, the Conasauga River Natural Area. C. cymatilis is found on the Chattahoochee National

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 188

 Forest, where it is a USFS Sensitive Species (USFS 2005). This species is listed as endangered in
both Tennessee and Georgia. None of these designations provide significant regulatory protection for the
species or its habitat.
References:
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1970. New crayfishes of the genus CAMBARUS from Tennessee and Georgia
(Decapoda, Astsacidae). Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 83(23):241-260.
Hobbs, Horton H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contrib. to Zool. 318:1549.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Skelton, C.E. 2008. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Species account for Cambarus
cymatilis. Available online at
www.georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/cambarus_cymatilis.pdf. Last
accessed April 26, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Tennessee Valley Authority. 2007. Environmental Assessment, Center Point-Moss Lake
230/115-Kv Transmission Line And Moss Lake Substation. Available online at
www.tva.gov/environment/reports/centerpoint/ea.pdf. Last accessed June 7, 2009
U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation
Management in the Appalachian Mountains. Page 19 of 41. Available online at
www.fs.fed.us/r8/planning/vmeis/documents/SVMEIS_Appal.pdf. Last accessed June 3, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Regional Forester Sensitive Species, Regions 8 And 9. Available
online at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480093cd9&dispositi
on=attachment&contentType=pdf. Last accessed June 30, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Vegetation Control: Non-Native Invasive Species and Shortleaf Pine
Restoration Release on the Chattooga River Ranger District, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest:
Banks, Habersham, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, Union and White Counties. 62 pp.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 189

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus eeseeohensis
Common Name:
Grandfather Mountain Crayfish
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The Grandfather Mountain crayfish is found only in the Linville River of North Carolina and
presently known to exist only above the falls of the Linville River; a distance of about 5-10 miles
(Thoma 2005).
Habitat:
Cambarus eeseechensis has been observed under rocks in riffle areas of a small river in North
Carolina (Thoma 2005).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are fewer than five occurrences with an unknown total
population size.
Population Trends:
This species is newly described so no population or trend information is available (NatureServe
2008).
Status:
The Grandfather Mountain crayfish has a very limited distribution, occupying only mainstem
portions of the Linville River. It is potentially imperiled due to invasive species (NatureServe
2008). AFS lists this species as Threatened and NatureServe (2008) ranks it as critically
imperiled.
Habitat destruction:
The only locality of this species, Linville River, has numerous impoundments on its mainstem
(Thoma 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No regulatory mechanisms protect this recently described species.
Other factors:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is potentially imperiled due to invasive crayfish
species likely introduced by fishermen who frequent the single area from which this species is
known. Thoma (2005) reports that impoundments on the Linville River create the possibility of
bait bucket introductions of non-native crayfish species, and that due to the placid nature of this
species, the introduction of any mainstream dwelling species could result in extinction of the
Grandfather Mountain crayfish.
According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (2000): “Nonindigenous
crayfishes can affect natives via competition, predation, genetic dilution, and by serving as disease
vectors. Further, introductions of nonindigenous crayfishes can enhance the negative effects of
environmental change on native species because non-natives are often more tolerant to
environmental degradation. Lodge et al. (2000a) consider nonindigenous crayfish introductions to be
the single greatest threat to native crayfish biodiversity worldwide. In Europe, nonindigenous
crayfishes have contributed to serious declines and even local extinctions of its 5 native species.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 190

 In several areas of North America, combinations of environmental degradation and introductions
of non-native crayfishes have led to declines in native species, and to the extinction of at least one
native crayfish in northern California (Lodge et al. 2000a). During recent decades, at least 3 exotic
crayfish species have been introduced into North Carolina; therefore, we are concerned about
potential impacts to our ecosystems and native crayfish species.”
References:
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000a. Nonindigenous crayfishes
threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: Lessons from Europe. Fisheries 25(8):7-20.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2000. Proposal for Status Inventory of
Uncommon Crayfish In North Carolina. Available online at
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/nccrayfishes/craysurveyproposal.html.
Last accessed June 5, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Thoma, R.G. 2005. Cambarus (Cambarus) eeseeohensis (Decapoda: Cambaridae), a new species
of crayfish from the Linville River of North Carolina and its bearing on understanding the
evolution of the subgenus Cambarus. Poceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
118(4): 794-802.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 191

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus elkensis
Common Name:
Elk River Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
According to NatureServe (2008) the Elk River Crayfish has only been recorded from the Elk
River above Sutton Lake, and in the Holly and Birch rivers in Webster, Nicholas, and Pocahontas
counties, West Virginia. Its total range is about 100-250 square km (about 40-100 square miles).
Habitat:
Cambarus elkensis is found under loose rocks in riffles or pools that have current (Jezerinac et al.
1995). Is absent from headwater streams. Jezerinac and Stocker (1993) report that riverbed
habitat for this species consists of sandstone boulders, cobble, gravel, and sand. It is found in an
area with significant current, under cobble, on top of sand and gravel, or under loose rocks in
riffles, or pools with currents. Vegetation in area consists of hemlocks, birches, alders, and
rhododendrons.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that Cambarus elkensis has between 6 - 20 populations with a total
of 1000 - 2500 individuals. Eleven element occurrances have been recorded, one of which is
historic and probably extirpated. To date a total of 95 specimens have been recorded (Jezerinac
and Stocker, 1993), although little is known about actual population size.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this crayfish is declining in the short-term by up to 30 percent.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled. AFS lists it as Threatened due to
limited range and habitat loss. It is one of two crayfish species endemic to West Virginia
(Jezerinac et al. 1995).
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) states, "It is currently known that coal mining, siltation, logging and other
impacts to water quality are affecting Cambarus elkensis (Forests for Watersheds and Wildlife
2005). The Elk River Watershed is dominated by agricultural lands, and coal mining, and oil and
gas extraction are common. This is causing acidic discharge into the river and having a severe
negative impact on the river system (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2001)." The
Upper Elk River is threatened by a sewage treatment plant, according to Ruediger (2005).
Jezerinac and Stocker (1994) state that C. elkensis is found in Elk River above Sutton Lake and
Birch River below Sutton Lake, but suitable habitat was destroyed between when the lake was
constructed.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 192

 Other factors:
This crayfish may be threatened by exotic crayfish. As a coldwater stream with a reservoir at one
end, the opportunity for introduction of the exotic competitor, Orconectes virilis, is high. This
crayfish is threatened by pollution from coal mining, agriculture, and development.
References:
Jezerinac, R. F., G. W. Stocker, and D. C. Tarter. 1995. The Crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae)
of West Virginia. Bulletin of the Ohio Biological Survey, Vol. 10, No. 1. Ohio Biological
Survey, College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University, and Nongame Wildlife and
Natural Heritage Programs, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio. 193
pp.
Jezerinac, R.F. and G. W. Stocker. 1993. A new species of crayfish (Decapoda:Cambaridae)
belonging to the genus CAMBARUS, subgenus HIATICAMBARUS, from the upper Elk River
drainage of West Virginia. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 106(2): pp. 346-352.
Ruediger, P. Letter to the Editor. Charleston (WV) Gazette, November 4, 2005. Page 4A.
Sustainable Forestry Initiative. 2005. Species and Communities of Concern in West Virginia.
Available online at www.conservationforestry.org/Documents/SpeciesProfile_WV.pdf. Last
accessed June 7, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 193

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus extraneus
Common Name:
Chickamauga Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that Cambarus extraneus is restricted to South Chickamauga Creek
basin in Catoosa, Walker and Whitfield counties in Georgia and Hamilton County in Tennessee.
The total range is about 250-1000 square km (about 100-400 square miles). Skelton (2008)
reports 15 collection sites in Georgia.
Habitat:
The Chickamauga crayfish is found in moderately flowing, small, shallow, rock-littered streams,
according to NatureServe (2008). It can also be found among trapped leaf litter.
Populations:
Hobbs (1981) found 12 populations in Georgia, based on thorough collecting; Tennessee is less
well collected, but could add a few more locations. NatureServe (2008) reports between 6 and 20
populations with a total population of at least 2,500 individuals.
Population Trends:
Skelton (2008) believes that Tennessee populations are thought to be declining, while limited
collecting in Georgia indicates the at least some populations are doing well.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled in Georgia and critically imperiled in
Tennessee. The States of Georgia and Tennessee have both classified this species as Threatened.
This species was a C2 Candidate Species under the Federal ESA before that list was abolished.
The U.S. Forest Service (2002) has designated Cambarus extraneus as a Sensitive Species. It is
ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as threatened by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
The species is threatened by the always strong possibility for stream impoundment in the region
(NatureServe 2008). There are several populations in or near the Chattanooga metropolitan area
that could be impacted by development pressure. Skelton (2008) reports: "Small range size makes
this species vulnerable to extirpation. Heavy sedimentation resulting from poor development and
land management practices may cover substrates and other daytime hiding places on which
crayfishes rely to avoid predation. . . . [c]onserving populations of the Chickamauga crayfish will
require general watershed level protection measures, including the protection of riparian zones,
control of sediment and nutrient runoff from farms and construction sites, and limiting the
amount of impervious cover (e.g., pavement) within occupied watersheds."
The U.S. Forest Service is conducting herbicide-based vegetation management in the range of this
species without surveys or species-level analysis (U.S. Forest Service 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 194

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to the USFS (2005) this species occurs on National Forests in Alabama, where it is a
Other factors:
Skelton (2008) reports: "The introduction of non-native crayfishes is a threat to all native
crayfishes."
References:
Bouchard, R W. 1978. Distribution of the crayfish Cambarus (Puncticambarus) extraneus
(Decapoda: Cambaridae). Final report to Tennessee Valley Authority under contract no. TV45809A. 16 pp. + 2 appendices.
Hobbs, Horton H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contrib. to Zool. 318:1549.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Skelton, C.E. 2008. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Species account for Cambarus
extraneus. Available online at
www.georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/cambarus_extraneus.pdf. Last
accessed April 22, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation
Management in the Appalachian Mountains. Page 19 of 41. Available online at
www.fs.fed.us/r8/planning/vmeis/documents/SVMEIS_Appal.pdf. Last accessed June 3, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Regional Forester Sensitive Species, Regions 8 And 9. Available
online at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480093cd9&dispositi
on=attachment&contentType=pdf. Last accessed June 30, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 195

 U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Vegetation Control: Non-Native Invasive Species and Shortleaf Pine
Restoration Release on the Chattooga River Ranger District,
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest: Banks, Habersham, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, Union and
White Counties. 62 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 196

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus fasciatus
Common Name:
Etowah Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
NatureServe (2008) states that Cambarus fasciatus is restricted to the Etowah River drainage in
northwest Georgia (a six county area) (Hobbs 1981). Skelton (2008) reports that "the Etowah
crayfish is known only from the Etowah River system, primarily above Allatoona Dam. All of the
records of this species are from the Piedmont physiographic province. Only three collections
have been made downstream of Allatoona Dam and it is possible that this form represents an
undescribed species."
Habitat:
The Etowah crayfish is found in swift parts of small streams (Nature Serve 2008). Skelton (2008)
reports that "[t]he Etowah crayfish is usually found beneath rocks in moderately to swiftly flowing
areas of streams. It is occasionally found in association with woody debris or aggregations of
leaves."
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates from 20-80 populations of this species, with no detailed
information on population size or trend available.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled, and the State of Georgia lists it as
Threatened, as does the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
According to NatureServe (2008), most populations of this species are located near the rapidly
expanding Atlanta metropolitan area. The range has already been fragmented by the Allatoona Lake
reservoir, and more development could result in more habitat loss. Mining, agriculture and other
human activities have also caused the degradation of water quality in the Etowah River basin in
recent years (Walters et al. 2003)
Skelton (2008) indicates that "The small range of this species and the high development rates
within that range are significant threats to the Etowah crayfish. Heavy sedimentation resulting
from poor development and land management practices may cover substrates and other daytime
hiding places on which crayfishes rely to avoid predation. . . Conserving populations of the
Etowah crayfish will require general watershed level protection measures, including the
protection of riparian zones, control of sediment and nutrient runoff from farms and construction
sites, and limiting the amount of impervious cover (e.g., pavement) within occupied watersheds."
The U.S. Forest Service is conducting herbicide-based vegetation management in the range of this
species without surveys or species-level analysis. (U.S. Forest Service 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to Skelton (2008) "[s]ome populations occur on publicly owned conservation lands in

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 197

 headwater tributaries to the Etowah River." This crayfish is listed as threatened by the state of
Georgia, but this designation does not protect the species' habitat.
Other factors:
Skelton (2008) states that "The introduction of non-native crayfishes is a threat to all native
crayfishes."
References:
Hobbs, Horton H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contrib. to Zool. 318:1549.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Skelton, C.E. 2008. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Species account for Cambarus
fasciatus. Available online at
www.georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/cambarus_fasciatus.pdf. Last
accessed May 9, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Vegetation Control: Non-Native Invasive Species and Shortleaf Pine
Restoration Release on the Chattooga River Ranger District,
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest: Banks, Habersham, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, Union and
White Counties. 62 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 198

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus georgiae
Common Name:
Little Tennessee Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports the Little Tennessee crayfish is known from Rabun County, Georgia
and Macon County, North Carolina (50 stream miles of the Little Tennessee River drainage). It is
also found in the upper Little Tennessee River basin of North Carolina and Georgia. LeGrand et
al. (2006) cite the Little Tennessee drainage in Jackson and Macon Cos., North Carolina.
NatureServe esitmates a total range of 100-250 square km (about 40-100 square miles).
Habitat:
C. georgiae is associated with debris in slower parts of swift streams and areas lacking other
crayfish competitors (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species seems unable to compete with Cambarus Bartonii in
riffle areas, and hides in trapped leaf debris.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) states that species is known from fewer than 10 localities and that it has been
collected from 37 sites. Global abundance is estimated at 1000-2500 individuals: "An intensive
survey for the species collected 302 individuals from 37 sites. Hobbs (1981) cites 51 specimens
from a single site on the Little Tennessee River in Rabun Co., Georgia and Macon Co., North
Carolina. It was collected at one of 13 sites surveyed recently (but not sites known to have
historical occurrences) (Simon and Fraley, 2008)."
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this crayfish has declined in the short-term by up to 30 percent.
Hobbs (1981) notes some decline, especially at the type locality, based upon competition with
Cambarus bartonii.
Status:
The State of Georgia lists this species as Endangered. In North Carolina it is a species of Special
Concern. AFS now lists it as Vulnerable (Taylor et al. 2007). It was a Federal C2 Candidate
Species until that list was abolished. The U.S. Forest Service (2002) has designated Cambarus
georgiae as a Sensitive Species. NatureServe (2008) ranks it as critically imperiled in Georgia and
imperiled in North Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
The U.S. Forest Service is conducting herbicide-based vegetation management in the range of this
species without surveys or species-level analysis. U.S. Forest Service (2008).
According to Skelton (2008), "[t]he small range of this species and the high development rates
within that range are significant threats to the Little Tennessee crayfish. Heavy sedimentation
resulting from poor development and land management practices may cover substrates and other
daytime hiding places on which crayfishes rely to avoid predation." Furthermore, "[t]he upper

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 199

 Little Tennessee River in Georgia is surrounded by intensive agriculture and urban development
and is in very poor condition." And, "Conserving populations of the Little Tennessee crayfish will
require general watershed level protection measures, including the protection of riparian zones,
control of sediment and nutrient runoff from farms and construction sites, and limiting the
amount of impervious cover (e.g., pavement) within occupied watersheds."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though this crayfish is state-listed in Georgia, this designation provides no regulatory protection
for the species' habitat. The species occurs in the Nantahala and Chattahoochee National Forests in
NC and GA, where it is a U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species (USFS 2002) but this protection is
discretionary. According to Skelton (2008), "[a] large tributary to the Little Tennessee River,
Betty’s Creek, has high habitat quality and has a conservation easement in place in its headwaters"
which may confer some protection to the species in that location.
Other factors:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species can tolerate some sedimentation, but is intolerant to
point source pollution and is absent from the most polluted areas in its range (McLarney 1993).
This species is apparently unable to compete with the sympatric C.(C.) bartonii, and has declined at
some localities due to competition (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Cooper, J. E., and A. L. Braswell. 1995. Observations of North Carolina crayfishes (Decapoda:
Cambaridae). Brimleyana 22:87-132.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 318:
1-549.
Hobbs, Horton H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contrib. to Zool. 318:1549.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000a. Nonindigenous crayfishes
threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: Lessons from Europe. Fisheries 25(8):7-20.
McLarney, W. O. 1993. Status survey of the crayfish CAMBARUS GEORGIAE in the upper
Little Tennessee watershed. Final Report. Submitted to North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission. 34 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 200

 McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2000. Proposal for Status Inventory of
Uncommon Crayfish In North Carolina. Available online at
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/nccrayfishes/craysurveyproposal.html.
Last accessed June 5, 2009.
Skelton, C.E. 2008. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Species account for Cambarus
georgiae. Available online at
www.georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/cambarus_georgiae.pdf. Last
accessed July 15, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation
Management in the Appalachian Mountains. Page 19 of 41. Available online at
www.fs.fed.us/r8/planning/vmeis/documents/SVMEIS_Appal.pdf. Last accessed June 3, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Vegetation Control: Non-Native Invasive Species and Shortleaf Pine
Restoration Release on the Chattooga River Ranger District,
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest: Banks, Habersham, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, Union and
White Counties. 62 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 201

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus harti
Common Name:
Piedmont Blue Burrower
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
Despite intensive collection by a very experienced collector, this species is known from only two
sites in the piedmont of Flint and Chattahoochee river systems, in Meriwether County, Georgia.
Skelton (2008) “found bluish crayfish specimens that may represent the Piedmont blue burrower
at six additional locations in Meriwether County, but none were males and thus the identifications
are considered tentative. A recent collection of blue burrowing crayfishes from the Whites Creek
system (Flint tributary) may also be the Piedmont blue burrower.”
Habitat:
The Piedmont Blue burrowing crayfish burrows in the seepage area of stream floodplains with
water level near the surface, according to NatureServe (2008). Skelton (2008) reports that C.
harti occupies “complex burrows adjacent to streams and seepage areas, or in low areas where the
water table is near the surface of the ground.”
Ecology:
C. harti digs complex burrows in sandy, organically rich, water saturated soil with many roots
(NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are less than 5 populations with a total of fewer than 1000
individuals of C. harti extant. There are only two confirmed sites.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) indicates that Cambarus harti is made up of small populations with a
restricted range and ranks it as critically imperiled. The State of Georgia lists it as Endangered, as
do the IUCN and the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
According to Fiegel (2009), “There is concern for C. harti vulnerability to extirpation due to
habitat changes, destruction or degradation. For example, the site where Hart and Hart (1974)
captured individuals has been altered due to logging operations and the species may be gone from
that location."
According to Skelton (2008), “[s]mall range size makes this species vulnerable to extinction. The
small size of individual populations makes them vulnerable to land disturbing activities. Any
expansion of the Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery or the Warm Springs water works would
threaten this species.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
One population is on property owned by the city of Warm Springs and is somewhat protected
(Skelton 2008). This species is listed as endangered by the state of Georgia, but this designation
provides no habitat protection.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 202

 Other factors:
According to Fiegel (2009), “This species is an obligate burrowing crayfish and may be
susceptible to climate changes related to drought.”
References:
Figiel C. 2009. Notes on the Piedmont Blue Burrower, Cambarus harti. Crayfish News 31:2 (5).
Available online at http://crayfish.ro/anexe/Parvulescu_(CN)-2009.pdf. Last accessed
September 24, 2009.
Georgia Museum of Natural History. Undated. Web page "Eye on Conservation: DNR Programs.
Available online at http://museum.nhm.uga.edu/content/exhibits/conservation/dnr_help.htm. Last
accessed September 24, 2009.
Hart, D. G. and C. W. Hart, Jr. 1974. The Ostracod Family Entocytheridae. Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia Monograph. 238 p.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 318:
1-549.
Hobbs, Horton H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contrib. to Zool. 318:1549.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Skelton, C.E. 2008. Georgia Department of Natural Resources - Species account for Cambarus
harti. Available online at
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/cambarus_harti.pdf. Last accessed
Septtember 23, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 203

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus jezerinaci
Common Name:
Spiny Scale Crayfish
G Rank:
G2
Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the range of C. jezerinaci is 100-250 square km (about 40-100
square miles). This species is confined to small tributaries of the Powell River in Lee County,
Virginia and Clairborne County, Tennessee (Thoma 2000).
Thoma (2009) reports that this species "is found in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. The
Virginia and Tennessee populations are found in the Powell River basin and the Kentucky
populations is found throughout the Cumberland River basin upstream of Pine Mountain."
Habitat:
The Spiny Scale crayfish prefers first and second order, spring fed streams of higher altitude and
high gradient. It is a secondary burrower (Thoma 2000).
Populations:
NatureServe (2010) states: "In Tennessee it occurs in the Ridge and Valley province in the Powell
River, on a tributary of Mill Hollow, east of Bacchus, Claiborne Co. (Williams and Bivens,
2001). In Virginia it is in two counties (including Lee Co.) in the Powell River basin in streams
abutting Cumberland and Stone Mountain only. A third Virginia population in the South Fork
Powell River of Wise Co., Virginia, is morphologically similar somewhat to C. parvoculus but is
far separated from nominal C. parvoculus populations but has not been analyzed genetically;
therefore it is currently placed tentatively in C. jezerinaci (Thoma and Fetzner, 2008). Kentucky
populations are found in the upper Cumberland River above Pine Mountain and Kentucky River
headwaters (R. Thoma, pers. comm., 2009)."
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2010) reports that this species is declining in the short-term by up to 30 percent
due to forestry and mining.
Status:
NatureServe (2010) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Virginia and not ranked in
Tennessee and Kentucky. AFS lists it as Stable. Virginia classifies it as a Tier II Species of
Greatest Conservation Need.
Habitat destruction:
According to Thoma (2009), C. jerzerinaci is "impacted by human activities such as urbanization,
agriculture, and enrichment (especially from sewage). In small streams with adjacent roads C.
jezerinaci populations were either suppressed or completely absent. Roads resulted in increased
nutrient loads from adjacent lawns and septic systems associated with houses. Bed load sediments
also tended to be higher in such streams. The best populations were found in streams such as
White Branch that drained directly from Cumberland Mountain in a west to east direction. These
streams have steep narrow valleys and afford little opportunity for human habitation or road
building. They are also heavily wooded. The greatest threat to the species is thought to be timbering
activities, especially clear cutting and associated road building that would result in

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 204

 increased bedload sediments. Unregulated grazing on steep terrain also has negative effects on
instream sediment and consequently C. jezerinaci populations."
NatureServe (2010) reports that there are some declines in Virginia populations due to forestry
activities as well as decline on the Tennessee/Virginia line due to coal mining. Coal mining also
occurs in this species range in Kentucky, and could pose a threat there as well. NatureServe
(2010) states: "It is likely to be undergoing localized declines due to climate change, water
pollution and alterations to the hydrological regime."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Thoma, R. 2009. The conservation status of Cambarus (Puncticambarus) veteranus, Big Sandy
Crayfish; Cambarus (Jugicambarus) jezerinaci, Spiny Scale Crayfish; and Cambarus (Cambarus)
sp. A, Blue Ridge Crayfish. Report to Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries.
Thoma, R.F. 2000. Cambarus (Jugicambarus) jezerinaci (Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae), a
new species of crayfish from the Powell River drainage of Tennessee and Virginia. Proceedings
of the Biological Society of Washington, 113: 731-738.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 205

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus jonesi
Common Name:
Alabama Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Currently Stable
Range:
NatureServe (2008) states that the species is found in Tennessee River caves between Florence
and Guntersville, AL (Hobbs, 1989; Buhay et al., 2007). On Federal land, it is found in Key Cave
National Wildlife Refuge. A new study by Buhay and Crandall (2009) found that "a single
population of C. jonesi along with some newly discovered neighboring populations all in Marshall
County, Alabama actually represented a distinct cryptic evolutionary lineage … herein described
as Cambarus speleocoopi."
Habitat:
This species lives in cave pools (NatureServe 2008). Its population falls in the middle of three coextensive troglobitic crawfishes without any reported habitat partitioning. The species is found
alongside Cambarus tenebrosus (facultative cave dweller) and Orconectes australis (obligate cave
dweller) in Madison Co., Orconectes sheltae (obligate cave dweller) and Cambarus veitchorum
(obligate cave dweller) in Limestone Co., and Procambarus pecki (obligate cave dweller) in
Colbert, Lauderdale, and Morgan Cos., Alabama (Buhay et al., 2007).
Ecology:
Buhay et al (2007) report that "[u]nlike C. hamulatus, C. jonesi is known to co-occur with other
obligate cave-dwelling crayfish species."
Populations:
There are between 6 and 20 populations with 1000-10000 total individuals, according to
NatureServe (2008).
The species is currently found in 12 caves in Alabama (Buhay et al. 2007). Similar crayfish
identified in caves in Marshall Co. are a distinct species currently being described. Thus the
species occurs in Colbert, Limestone, Lauderdale, Madison, and Morgan Cos., Alabama.
Information (Hobbs 1981) indicating the species occurs in the Chattahoochee River in Georgia to
Halawakee Creek in Alabama is now belived to be incorrect (see also Mirarchi et al., 2004; in
appendix 1-2 published separately; Schuster and Taylor, 2004; Schuster et al., 2008).
All occurrances have very low populations with low fecundity (Buhay et al., 2007).
Population Trends:
In the short-term, this species is declining rapidly, by 30-50 percent, as reported by NatureServe
(2008). Long term, the decline is 25-50 percent. The species was previously found in 14 sites in
the Highland Rim region of northern Alabama (6 counties on both sides of the Tennessee River);
this has now fallen to 12 sites. A decline in cave habitat quality has been noted (Buhay et al.,
2007).
Status:
This species has a low area of occupancy, low number of occurrences, and each population has

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 206

 Habitat destruction:
The entire range of the species is subject to intensive stream impoundment and modification, as
reported by NatureServe (2008). Development associated with rapid expansion of cities within
the range continues to degrade habitat (Decatur and Huntsville, Alabama urban areas).
According to Dickson and Franz (1980) “[b]ecause troglobitic organisms have evolved in
relatively constant environments, many of their adaptations may be highly specialized allowing
existence only under prevailing ambient conditions. The reduction of O2 consumption and energy
turnover of gill tissues reported in this study gives evidence of the highly specialized nature of
physiological and biochemical adaptations in troglobitic organisms. Because of these adaptations
troglobitic species may be susceptible to subtle changes in water quality.”
As a cave obligate, its habitat requirements are very narrow, and the species is a specialist with
key requirements scarce. Recreation is a potential threat to this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species. Some occurrences are on Key Cave
National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS Undated), but even these may not adequately be protected from
pollution impacts. It is an Alabama species of greatest conservation need, but this designation
conveys no regulatory protection.
Other factors:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the species is subject to low fecundity and a long immature period.
References:
Buhay, J.E. and K.A. Crandall. 2009. Taxonomic Revision of Cave Crayfish in the Genus
Cambarus, Subgenus Aviticambarus (Decapoda: Cambaridae) with Descriptions of Two New
Species, C. speleocoopi and C. laconensis, Endemic to Alabama, U.S.A. Journal of Crustacean
Biology 29(1):121-134.
Buhay, J.E., G. Moni, N. Mann, and K.A. Crandall. 2007. Molecular taxonomy in the dark:
evolutionary history, phylogeography, and diversity of cave crayfish in the subgenus
Aviticambarus, genus Cambarus. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 42: 435-448.
Dickson, G.W. and R. Franz. 1980. Respiration Rates, ATP Turnover and Adenylate Energy
Charge in Excised Gills of Surface and Cave Crayfish. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology A, 65:4(375-379).
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. H.H. Hobbs III, and M.A. Daniel. 1977. A review of the troglobitic decapod
Crustaceans of the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 244: 1-183.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 207

 Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil.
2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for
Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.
Schuster, G. A. and C.A. Taylor. 2004. Report on the crayfishes of Alabama: literature and
museum database review, species list with abbreviated annotations and proposed conservation
statuses. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report, 2004(12): 47 pp.
Schuster, G.A., C.A. Taylor, and J. Johansen. 2008. An annotated checklist and preliminary
designation of drainage distributions of the crayfishes of Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3):
493-504.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Web Page for Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge: http://www.fws.gov/keycave/. Last accessed
March 26, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 208

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus nerterius
Common Name:
Greenbrier Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Cambarus nerterius is known from a single cave in Pocahontos County and 15 caves or springs in
Greenbrier County, West Virginia (NatureServe 2008). The range is thus less than 100-250
square km (less than about 40 to 100 square miles).
Habitat:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Greenbrier cave crayfish is generally found in subterranean
streams, usually in the upper portions of the cave, but small specimens have also been collected
from dry stream beds that were nearly saturated by humidity.
Populations:
Cambarus nerterius is known from 16 caves or springs. Total population is estimated to number at
least 2,500. The density was observed to be about one crayfish per 2.4 square meters of habitat
(Jezerinac et al. 1995).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) indicates that the short-term trend for this species is stable, and long-term
trend is unknown.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled, the IUCN ranks it as vulnerable, and
AFS lists it as Endangered, due to limited range.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is most likely intolerant of perturbations. According
to the U.S. Forest Service (2001), cave crayfish including C. nerterius face numerous threats.
These include contamination from sewage, pesticides and herbicides, hazardous materials from
industrial accidents, habitat destruction from logging, mining and road construction, farming, and
other groundcover disturbances. Impoundments also harm cave species by interrupting streamflow
and modifying habitat, while smoke and quarrying have been noted as reducing water quality in
caves. Oil, gas and water extraction can also damage cave habitats, and invasive species can
devastate cave-obligate endemic species. Finally, human intrusion and vandalism have also
reduced crayfish viability at times. Road and trail construction near caves encourages human use
and associated impacts. Despite these pervasive effects, the Forest Service is not currently
monitoring C. nerterius.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species. C. nerterius is a USFS
Regional Forester Sensitive Species that occurs in caves on the Monongahela National Forest in
West Virginia, but protection for sensitive species is discretionary. This species also occurs in
General Davis Cave, which is owned and gated by The Nature Conservancy.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 209

 Other factors:
Water pollution from a variety of sources threatens this crayfish.
References:
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. H.H. Hobbs III, and M.A. Daniel. 1977. A review of the troglobitic decapod
Crustaceans of the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 244: 1-183.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Jezerinac, R. F., G. W. Stocker, and D. C. Tarter. 1995. The Crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae)
of West Virginia. Bulletin of the Ohio Biological Survey, Vol. 10, No. 1. Ohio Biological
Survey, College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University, and Nongame Wildlife and
Natural Heritage Programs, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio. 193
pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
U.S. Forest Service. 2001. Conservation Assessment for Greenbrier Cave Crayfish (Cambarus
nerterius). Available online at www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/caoverview/docs/invertebrate_Cambarus_nerterius-GreenbrierCaveCrayfish.pdf. Last accessed
June 13, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 210

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus obeyensis
Common Name:
Obey Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Obey crayfish is confined to headwaters and tributaries of the East Fork Obey River in
Cumberland, Fentress, Putnam, and Overton counties, Tennessee (Williams et al. 2006).
Habitat:
Cambarus obeyensis occurs in small to large streams where they are found beneath large rocks in
moderate to slow current (NatureServe 2008). However, the known range distribution suggest that
it is restricted to the upper reaches of streams that remain on the table rock portion of the
Cumberland Plateau upstream of where the streams have began to cut through the Pennsylvanian
Sandstone caps (Williams et al. 2006).
Populations:
There are 8 known occurrences of this species. In the original description, Hobbs and Shoup
(1947) reported only three known localities, all occurring within Hurricane Creek and its
tributaries. Since then, this species has been collected from only one other locality outside the
Hurricane Creek watershed (a single record collected from Dripping Springs Creek, a tributary to
Meadow Creek, a northerly flowing tributary just southwest of Hurricane Creek). Recent survey
efforts (Williams et al., 2006) found populations at all historic sites except Dripping Springs
Creek plus one new stream locality record within a tributary of Hurricane Creek.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2010) reports that this species has experienced short-term decline of up to 30
percent, stating: "Although one population may have been lost in Dripping Springs Creek (more
surveys are needed to confirm this), all historical occurrences have been confirmed to be extant
and viable recently (Williams et al., 2006). However, in 2008, most of the streams dried
completely so decline is imminent. These streams dry periodically causing fluctuations in
population numbers (T. Jones, R. Thoma, pers. comm., 2009)."
Status:
C. obeyensis is only known from the headwaters of one river system in Tennessee. Its status in
Tennessee is imperiled, and it is critically imperiled globally (G1S2) (NatureServe 2008). The
American Fisheries Society re-ranked this species from Threatened to Endangered (Taylor et al.
2007). The State of Tennessee classifies C. obeyensis as Threatened. Williams et al. (2006)
suggest that its state status be elevated to endangered. NatureServe (2010) states: "This species is
only known from the headwaters of one river system at the junction of three counties in
Tennessee in a very small area and populations fluctuate up and down due to periodic drought.
Also poor water quality is contributing to declining habitat for this species. It is extremely rare
and localized."
Habitat destruction:
Concerning threats to this species, NatureServe (2010) states: "Habitat loss and poor water quality issues
from point and non-point source pollution have plagued aquatic organisms within these streams for
many decades. While efforts are currently underway to improve water quality in a few streams, much of

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 211

 the watershed continues to suffer from historical surface coal mining practices. Although much of the
East Fork Obey River system remains forested, increasing residential development and poor logging and
agricultural practices pose continuing threats. Note there is the potential (not realized) threat of a large
sand mine being considered for construction in heart of range (per R. Thoma to C. Taylor, pers. comm.,
2008)."
C. obeyensis may occur near the Mine Lick Creek Interchange on Interstate 40 in Putnam County, and
could be impacted by construction (TDOT 2006). No surveys were performed and no analysis of
impacts was undertaken in the Environmental Assessment.
The Obey crayfish also occurs in the vicinity of the Algood 161KV Transmission line, which is due to
be upgraded. (TVA 2008.) While this project has the potential to degrade the aquatic habitat of this
species, again no surveys were performed and no analysis of impacts was undertaken by the action
agency.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
C. obeynsis and C. bouchardi are being considered for inclusion in a proposed Cumberland Habitat
Conservation Plan (Cumberland HCP 2006). This species is state listed in Tennessee, but this
designation conveys no habitat protection.
Other factors:
According to Williams et al. (2006) "the potential for nonindgenous crayfish species introductions
merit reason for additional concern, although none were found during our surveys."
References:
Cumberland HCP. 2006. Development Of A Habitat Conservation Plan For The Cumberlands
Region, Tennessee And Kentucky. Available online at
http://www.cumberlandhcp.org/files/cumberland-hcp-fy06-proposal.pdf. Last accessed August
16, 2009.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Mastin, M. April 2008 Tenne-Sierran. “Sierra Club Joins Fight Against Sand Mine Quarry”
Published by Tennessee Chapter Sierra Club, available online at
http://www.tennessee.sierraclub.org/0408ts.pdf. Last accessed August 16, 2009.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
residential development and poor logging and agricultural practices pose continuing threats. Note A.C.
Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
there is the potential (not realized) threat of a large sand mine being considered for construction E.A.
Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
in heart of range (per R. Thoma to C. Taylor, pers. comm., 2008)."Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W.
Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 212

 Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte, F.
Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific names of
aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American Fisheries Society
Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United States
and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Tennessee Dept. of Transportation. 2006. Environmental Assessment for the Mine Lick Creek
Interchange at Interstate 40 and Northern Connector Route from I-40 to US 70N (SR 24)
Putnam County, Tennessee. Available online at
http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/minelick/docs/MineLickEA.pdf. Last accessed August 16, 2009.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 2008. Final Environmental Assessment - Power Supply Upgrade Algood 161-KV Transmission Line, Putnam County, Tennessee. Available online at
http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/algood/ea.pdf. Last accessed August 16, 2009.
Williams, C.V. R.D. Bivens, and B.D. Carter. 2006. A status survey of the Obey crayfish
(Cambarus obeyensis). Report to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville,
Tennessee, March 2006. 19 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 213

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus parrishi
Common Name:
Hiwassee Headwater Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that a very experienced collector was able to produce only five
localities of Hiwassee headwater crayfish in Towns County, Georgia, and two in adjacent Clay
County, North Carolina in ten years of intensive collecting; all localities are in the headwaters of
the Hiwasee River. Recent efforts have discovered four additional localities in Clay County,
North Carolina and one in Cherokee Co.. The total range is estimated at 100-250 square km
(about 40-100 square miles).
Habitat:
According to NatureServe (2008), Cambarus parishi inhabits very swift, clear water flowing over a
bed of sand and rocks.
Ecology:
Although occurring in riffle areas, Hiwassee Headwater crayfish is most common in the rocky
areas between riffles, under rocks & in debris trapped by the rocks (NatureServe 2008); this
apparently allows it to partition the habitat with the sympatric C. bartoni.
Populations:
This species is known from a total of 11 locations, and it is estimated that there are less than
1000 total indivuals (NatureServe 2008). A total of 143 specimens have been collected, and this species
is apparently never abundant.
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Georgia and imperiled in North
Carolina. The U.S. Forest Service (2002) has designated Cambarus parrishi as a Sensitive Species.
In North Carolina it is designated a Special Concern species. The State of Georgia lists it as
Endangered. It was also a Federal C-2 Candidate species before that list was abolished. It is ranked
as vulnerable by the IUCN and as endangered by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
According to Skelton (2008), "The small range of this species and the high development rates
within that range are significant threats to the Hiwassee headwater crayfish. Heavy sedimentation
resulting from poor development and land management practices may cover substrates and other
daytime hiding place on which crayfishes rely to avoid predation . . . Conserving populations of
the Hiwassee headwater crayfish will require general watershed level protection measures,
including the protection of riparian zones, control of sediment and nutrient runoff from farms and
construction sites, and limiting the amount of impervious cover (e.g., pavement) within occupied
watersheds."
The U.S. Forest Service is conducting herbicide-based vegetation management in the range of this
species without surveys or species-level analysis. U.S. Forest Service (2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 214

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The USFS (2005) reports that this species is found on the Chattahoochee and Nantahala National
Forests, where it is a USFS Sensitive Species, but this designation conveys no regulatory
protection for the species' habitat. This crayfish is listed by the state of Georgia, which provides
protection from collection, but not habitat protection.
Other factors:
Skelton (2008) states that the introduction of non-native crayfishes is a threat to all native
crayfishes. According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (2000):
“Nonindigenous crayfishes can affect natives via competition, predation, genetic dilution, and by
serving as disease vectors. Further, introductions of nonindigenous crayfishes can enhance the
negative effects of environmental change on native species because non-natives are often more
tolerant to environmental degradation. Lodge et al. (2000a) consider nonindigenous crayfish
introductions to be the single greatest threat to native crayfish biodiversity worldwide. In Europe,
nonindigenous crayfishes have contributed to serious declines and even local extinctions of its 5
native species. In several areas of North America, combinations of environmental degradation and
introductions of non-native crayfishes have led to declines in native species, and to the extinction
of at least one native crayfish in northern California (Lodge et al. 2000a). During recent decades,
at least 3 exotic crayfish species have been introduced into North Carolina; therefore, we are
concerned about potential impacts to our ecosystems and native crayfish species.”
References:
Cooper, J. E., and A. L. Braswell. 1995. Observations of North Carolina crayfishes (Decapoda:
Cambaridae). Brimleyana 22:87-132.
Cooper, J.E. 1999. CAMBARUS (Puncticambarus) PARRISHI Hobbs, 1981. HIWASSEE
HEADWATERS CRAYFISH. Pp. 29-31 in J.C. Clamp (compiler). A Report on the Conservation
Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Crustacean Fauna. Scientific Council on
Freshwater and Terrestrial Crustaceans. Open-file report. Raleigh, NC. 53 pages + Appendix A &
B.
Cooper, J.E. 2006. A new crayfish of the genus Cambarus Erichson, 1846, subgenus
Puncticambarus Hobbs, 1969 (Decapoda: Cambaridae), from the Hiwassee River bason of North
Carolina. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 119(1): 81-90.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 318:
1-549.
Hobbs, Horton H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contrib. to Zool. 318:1549.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 215

 List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000a. Nonindigenous crayfishes
threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: Lessons from Europe. Fisheries 25(8):7-20.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2004. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. Available online at
http://www.ncnhp.org/Images/Other%20Publications/2004%20Rare%20Animal%20List.pdf.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2000. Proposal for Status Inventory of
Uncommon Crayfish In North Carolina. Available online at
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/nccrayfishes/craysurveyproposal.html.
Last accessed June 5, 2009.
Skelton, C.E. 2008. Georgia Department of Natural Resources - Species account for Cambarus
parrishi. Available online at
www.georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/cambarus_parrishi.pdf. Last
accessed June 18, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation
Management in the Appalachian Mountains. Page 19 of 41. Available online at
www.fs.fed.us/r8/planning/vmeis/documents/SVMEIS_Appal.pdf. Last accessed June 3, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Regional Forester Sensitive Species, Regions 8 And 9. Available
online at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480093cd9&dispositi
on=attachment&contentType=pdf. Last accessed June 30, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Vegetation Control: Non-Native Invasive Species and Shortleaf Pine
Restoration Release on the Chattooga River Ranger District,
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest: Banks, Habersham, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, Union and
White Counties. 62 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 216

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus pristinus
Common Name:
Pristine Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
According to NatureServe (2008) the range of C. pristinus is 100-250 square km (about 40-100
square miles). This species maintains a spotty distribution within the upper tributaries of the
Caney Fork River drainage, Cumberland Co. (possibly White and Van Buren Cos.), Tennessee.
Habitat:
This species is restricted to sandstone-derived streams of the Upper Caney Fork drainage of the
Cumberland Plateau. It is found in small to large streams under slabrock resting on bedrock, with
interspersed small rocks, cobble and sand occupying areas of 0-100 percent canopy cover. It is
associated strongly with streams in or near headwaters (Rohrbach and Withers 2006).
Populations:
C. pristinus has recently been discovered in several additional localities (approximately 15 newly
discovered since 2004) and is now known from 19 streams in Cumberland, Van Buren, White and
Bledsoe Cos., Tennessee (Rohrbach and Withers 2006).
Population Trends:
According to NatureServe (2008) this species is increasing in the short term and relatively stable
in the long term. Recently several new localities of C. pristinus were discovered, but the Fall
Creek Falls State Park record is now considered historical (Rohrbach and Withers 2006).
Status:
The pristine crayfish is critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008). It is a Federal Species of
Management Concern, and the State of Tennesee lists it as Endangered. It is ranked as vulnerable
by the IUCN, and as endangered by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
Rohrbach and Withers (2006) report that the primary threat to this species is siltation associated
with silvicultural and agricultural practices. Many sites where this species occurs are significantly
influenced or surrounded by large tracts of corporate timberland.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that few (1-3) occurrences of C. pristinus are appropriately protected.
One small segment of Oldfield Branch within Bledsoe State Forest was inhabited by this species,
and other streams on the forest are expected to contain the species. Blade Creek, also on the state
forest, once had a population but it is now considered historical (Rohrbach and Withers 2006).
Occurrence on a state forest does not necessarily protect this species from logging impacts, a
primary threat. This species is state-listed in Tennessee, but this designation conveys no habitat
protection.
References:
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 217

 Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Rohrbach, G.M. and D.I. Withers. 2006. A status survey of the Caney Fork crayfish (Cambarus
pristinus) and Hardin County crayfish (Orconectes wrighti) with notes on the Brawley's Fork
crayfish (Cambarus williami). Final report contract #ID-06-08125-00 submitted to the
Tennessee Natural Heritage Program, Nashville, Tennessee, 30 August 2006. 61 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 218

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus scotti
Common Name:
Chattooga River Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
According to NatureServe (2008) this species occupies less than 100-250 square km (less than
about 40 to 100 square miles). It is restricted to the Chattooga River basin in Chattooga and
Walker counties in Georgia and Cherokee County, Alabama. The Alabama specimens are
tentatively assigned to this species, but do not share all characters (Hobbs 1981), although it is
listed as occurring in Alabama in Taylor et al. (2007). Mirarchi et al. (2004; appendix 1.2 pub.
separately) lists this species in Alabama from 9 records in the upper Coosa River system
(Chattooga River).
Habitat:
Cambarus scotti is most abundant in areas with swift water and rocks (Hobbs, 1981).
Populations:
The Chatooga River crayfish was collected at 14 sites in Georgia and five sites in Alabama (Hobbs
1981). Mirarchi et al. (2004; appendix 1.2 pub. separately) and Schuster and Taylor (2004) list
this species in Alabama from 9 records in the upper Coosa River system (Chattooga River)
(Schuster et al. 2008). This species can be locally abundant.
Status:
This species is ranked as imperiled in Georgia and it is not ranked in Alabama (NatureServe
2008). AFS classifies this species as Threatened due to restricted range. Georgia lists this species
as Threatened.
Habitat destruction:
According to Skelton (2008), "[t]he small range of this species and poor land use practices within
that range are potential threats to the Chattooga River crayfish. Heavy sedimentation resulting
from poor development and land management practices may cover substrates and other daytime
hiding places on which crayfishes rely to avoid predation. . . "[c]onserving populations of the
Chattooga River crayfish will require general watershed level protection measures, including the
protection of riparian zones, control of sediment and nutrient runoff from farms and construction
sites, and limiting the amount of impervious cover (e.g., pavement) within occupied watersheds."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The Chattooga River was designated as a Wild and Scenic River in 1974 by The Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. This species is listed as threatened in Georgia, but this designation conveys no habitat
protection.
Other factors:
According to Skelton (2008), "The introduction of non-native crayfishes is a threat to all native
crayfishes."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 219

 References:
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.
Hobbs, Horton H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contrib. to Zool. 318:1549.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil.
2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for
Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.
Schuster, G. A. and C.A. Taylor. 2004. Report on the crayfishes of Alabama: literature and
museum database review, species list with abbreviated annotations and proposed conservation
statuses. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report, 2004(12): 47 pp.
Schuster, G.A., C.A. Taylor, and J. Johansen. 2008. An annotated checklist and preliminary
designation of drainage distributions of the crayfishes of Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3):
493-504.
Skelton, C.E. 2008. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Species account for Cambarus
scotti. Available online at
www.georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/cambarus_scotti.pdf. Last accessed
April 16, 2009.
Taylor, C.A., G.A. Schuster, J.E. Cooper, R.J. DiStefano, A.G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H.H. Hobbs III,
H.W. Robison, C.E. Skelton, and R.F. Thoma. 2007. A reassessment of the conservation status
of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries,
32(8): 371-389.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 220

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus speciosus
Common Name:
Beautiful Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
According to NatureServe (2008), this species is confined to a short stretch of the Coosawattee
River in Gilmer, Murray and Pickens counties, Georgia (Hobbs, 1989). The area is less than 100
sq. km (less than 40 sq. miles).
Skelton (2008) reports that "The Beautiful crayfish is endemic to the Coosawattee River system
(Upper Coosa River system) in northwest Georgia. Records are known from Talking Rock Creek
and several other streams and rivers upstream of Carter’s Lake Reservoir."
Habitat:
Cambarus speciousus occurs in clear to slightly cloudy water flowing swiftly over rocky bottom,
generally in a sandy and rocky substrate (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
NatureServe (2008) states that the Beautiful crayfish has not been found in small headwaters
streams. Most specimens were taken from under rocks or in beds of Podostemum.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) states that a very experienced collector produced only 9 sites with 76
Beautiful crayfish in more than a decade of study. Less than 1000 individuals are believed to exist.
Population Trends:
This species is declining in the short term by 10-30 percent, according to NatureServe (2008).
Status:
AFS considers this species endangered due to its small range and small population. IUCN lists it
as vulnerable, and NatureServe (2008) considers it to be imperiled. The Beautiful crayfish is
listed as Endangered by the State of Georgia. The U.S. Forest Service (2002) has designated
Cambarus speciosus as a Sensitive Species. Schuster (2001) reports this species as stable.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) indicates that Carter's Dam & other impoundment dams are destroying its
habitat.
The U.S. Forest Service states that "management activities most likely to create adverse effects to
this aquatic species are those that disturb soil and cause excessive siltation. Dams that restrict
water flow and change stream also create problems for this crayfish."
Skelton (2008) relates the following: "The small range of this species and the high development
rates within that range are significant threats to the beautiful crayfish. Heavy sedimentation
resulting from poor development and land management practices may cover substrates and other
daytime hiding places on which crayfishes rely to avoid predation."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 221

 The U.S. Forest Service is conducting herbicide-based vegetation management in the range of this
species without surveys or species-level analysis (U.S. Forest Service 2008).
Skelton (2008) warns that "conserving populations of the beautiful crayfish will require general
watershed-level protection measures, including the protection of riparian zones, control of
sediment and nutrient runoff from farms and construction sites, and limiting the amount of
impervious cover (e.g., pavement) within occupied watersheds."

Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.
This species is found in the Chattahoochee National Forest, where it is a USFS Sensitive Species,
but this designation does not effectively protect this species because the management of sensitive
species is discretionary, and the Forest Service is conducting potentially harmful activities in the
range of this species without surveys or species-level analysis (U.S. Forest Service 2008).
It is listed as endangered by the state of Georgia, but this designation provides no protection for
the species habitat.
Other factors:
Skelton (2008) states that "The introduction of non-native crayfishes is a threat to all native
crayfishes." Non-native crayfish are being spread by fishermen who use them as bait.
References:
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division. 2006. List of
Protected Species. Available online at
http://www.georgiawildlife.com/assets/documents/FinalListProtectedUpdate06.pdf. Last
accessed April 6, 2009.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 318:
1-549.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 222

 Schuster, G.A. 2001. A study of the current status of two species of crayfishes, Cambarus
coosawattae, and Cambarus speciosus, both endemic to the Coosawattee River system, in
northern Georgia. Final Report, Georgia Forest Watch, Ellijay, Georgia. 9 pp.
Skelton, C.E. 2008. Georgia Department of Natural Resources - Species account for Cambarus
speciosus. Available online at
www.georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/cambarus_speciosus.pdf. Last
accessed April 1, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement on Vegetation
Management in the Appalachian Mountains. Page 19 of 41. Available online at
www.fs.fed.us/r8/planning/vmeis/documents/SVMEIS_Appal.pdf. Last accessed June 3, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Biological Evaluation for the
Revision of the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
Cambarus speciosus, pp. I-69 – I-70.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Regional Forester Sensitive Species, Regions 8 And 9. Available
online at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480093cd9&dispositi
on=attachment&contentType=pdf. Last accessed June 30, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Vegetation Control: Non-Native Invasive Species and Shortleaf Pine
Restoration Release on the Chattooga River Ranger District,
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest: Banks, Habersham, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, Union and
White Counties. 62 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 223

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus spicatus
Common Name:
Broad River Spiney Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Broad River Spiney Crayfish is restricted to the Little and Broad River drainages in Fairfield,
Richland, and Spartanburg counties, South Carolina (Eversole, 1995). Cooper and Braswell
(1995) report a new record from Cleveland County, North Carolina. LeGrand et al. (2006) cite
streams in the Broad River drainage in Cleveland and Polk Cos., North Carolina.
Habitat:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is found in streams of small to medium size with
trapped leaf litter. Clamp (1999) states that Cambarus spicatus is found in "debris along the
margins of the stream."
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are at least 21 occurrences of this species, with at least
2,500 individuals. It is not uncommon within its limited range.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled in North Carolina and vulnerable in South
Carolina. IUCN classifies this species as Vulnerable based on its restricted range.
In North Carolina, Cambarus spicatus is a Species of Special Concern. In South Carolina, it is a
Species of High Conservation Concern. It is ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries
Society (Taylor 1996).
Habitat destruction:
Where Cambarus spicatus is found near urban areas, its habitat is flanked by major impoundments
(NatureServe 2008). There is also an unquantified threat from recreational development and
further impoundments.
SCDNR (2005) states that:
"Physical alteration of habitat also represents a challenge to the survival of crayfish. Some aquatic
crayfishes are quite adaptable and can live in ponds, impoundments and roadside ditches, while
others are more sensitive to habitat alteration. Some crayfishes are oxygen regulators and are able
to increase ventilation rates in response to reduced oxygen conditions, while others, the oxygen
conformers, are unable to do this (Hobbs 1991). Therefore, some species are better equipped to
survive when the flow of water slows and oxygen levels decline. Some species… have been
eliminated from parts of their range as a result of damming activities associated with reservoir
construction. Channelization and dredging can also be very detrimental to aquatic crayfish that
require rocks, crevices or tree roots along undercut banks as hiding places (Hobbs and Hall
1974). In general, crayfish are not as sensitive to siltation as some aquatic invertebrates such as
mussels, but severe siltation has caused declines in or the extirpation of many populations of
crayfish (Hobbs and Hall 1974).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 224

 Pollution has been known to eliminate crayfish from streams. Ortmann (1909) noted the
extirpation of crayfish from some sections of streams and rivers due to mining and oil refineries.
Crayfish are harmed by a variety of insecticides, herbicides and industrial chemicals (Eversole et
al. 1996). Juvenile crayfish are generally about four times as sensitive to water borne pollution
than adults; early instars are about three times as sensitive as juveniles (Eversole and Sellers
1996). There is little knowledge of the differences in sensitivity to toxins among species.
Nutrient enrichment is less likely to harm crayfish than other aquatic life because they are
omnivorous and can act as scavengers as well as primary and secondary consumers. Hobbs and
Hall (1974) noted several casual observations in which crayfish were actually more abundant
downstream of areas with large amounts of garbage or animal remains. Enrichment may be
harmful to crayfish, however, when it results in oxygen depletion (Hobbs and Hall 1974).
Pollution of groundwater may impact terrestrial burrowers, because they inhabit water trapped in
their burrows."
Other factors:
Fullerton and Watson (2001) believe that Cambarus spicatus may be threatened by the appearance
of the non-native crayfish Orconectes rusticus, which has caused problems for native crayfish in
other places.
According to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (2000): “Nonindigenous crayfishes can
affect natives via competition, predation, genetic dilution, and by serving as disease vectors.
Further, introductions of nonindigenous crayfishes can enhance the negative effects of
environmental change on native species because non-natives are often more tolerant to
environmental degradation. Lodge et al. (2000a) consider nonindigenous crayfish introductions to
be the single greatest threat to native crayfish biodiversity worldwide. In Europe, nonindigenous
crayfishes have contributed to serious declines and even local extinctions of its 5 native species.
In several areas of North America, combinations of environmental degradation and introductions
of non-native crayfishes have led to declines in native species, and to the extinction of at least one
native crayfish in northern California (Lodge et al. 2000a). During recent decades, at least 3 exotic
crayfish species have been introduced into North Carolina; therefore, we are concerned about
potential impacts to our ecosystems and native crayfish species.”
According to SCDNR (2005): "The arrival of introduced species is probably the greatest challenge
to crayfish (Lodge et al. 2000 a,b). The ranges and abundances of many native crayfish may have
been reduced by invasive crayfish, both in the United States and in Europe (Lodge et al. 2000a;
Hobbs et al. 1989).
Prevention of future introductions is most likely the only effective way to deal with the challenges
caused by nonnative crayfish. No methods for eliminating invasive species without also harming
native species are currently available. Even if effective biological control methods are developed,
preventing introductions will still be much easier than eradicating an established species. Lodge et
al. (2000b) proposed federal legislation that, if enacted and enforced, would drastically reduce the
risk of future introductions. They include banning the use of live crayfishes as bait, and adopting a
'white list' approach for the sale of all crayfish in the aquarium, garden pond and educational trade."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 225

 References:
Clamp, J.C. (compiler). 1999. A Report on the Conservation Status of North Carolina’s
Freshwater and Terrestrial Crustracean Fauna. Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial
Crustaceans. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.
Cooper, J. E., A. L. Braswell, and C. McGrath. 1998. Noteworthy distributional records for
crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in North Carolina. The Journal of the Elisha Mitchell
Scientific Society 114(1):1-10.
Cooper, J. E., and A. L. Braswell. 1995. Observations of North Carolina crayfishes (Decapoda:
Cambaridae). Brimleyana 22:87-132.
Eversole, A.G. 1990. Distribution of three rare crayfish species in South Carolina. Program and
Abstracts of the 8th International Symposium of Astacology, Baton Rouge, LA, April 22-26:31.
Eversole, A.G. 1995. Distribution of three rare crayfish species in South Carolina, USA.
Freshwater Crayfish, 8: 113-120.
Eversole, A.G. and B.C. Sellers. 1996. Comparison of relative crayfish toxicity values.
Freshwater Crayfish. 11:274-285.
Eversole, A.G. and D.R. Jones. 2004. Key to the crayfish of South Carolina. Unpublished report.
Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. 43 pp.
Eversole, A.G., J.M. Whetstone and B.C. Sellers. 1996. Handbook of relative acute toxicity
values for crayfish. S. C. Sea Grant Consortium, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. 8 pp.
Fullerton, A.H. and B.T. Watson. 2001. New Distributional Records for Two Nonindigenous and
One Native Crayfish In North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society Spring,
117:1 (66-70).
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.
Hobbs, H.H. III, J.P. Jass and J. V. Huner. 1989. A review of global crayfish introductions with
particular emphasis on two North American species (Decapoda, Cambaridae). Crustaceana.
56(3):299-316.
Hobbs, H.H. III. 1991. Decapoda. Pages 823-858. In: Ecology and classifi cation of North
American freshwater invertebrates, J. Thorp and A.P. Covich, eds. Academic Press. New York,
New York. 911 pp.
Hobbs, H.H. Jr. and E.T. Hall, Jr. 1974. pages 195-214. In: Pollution ecology of freshwater
invertebrates, C.W. Hart, Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller, eds. Academic Press. New York, New York. 389
pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 226

 LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich and J. Skurdal. 2000b. Reducing impacts of exotic
crayfish introductions: new policies needed. Fisheries. 25(8):21-23.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich, and J. Skurdal. 2000a. Nonindigenous crayfishes
threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: Lessons from Europe. Fisheries 25(8):7-20.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2000. Proposal for Status Inventory of
Uncommon Crayfish In North Carolina. Available online at
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/nccrayfishes/craysurveyproposal.html.
Last accessed June 5, 2009.
Price, J. 2005. Broad River Spiny Crayfish, Cambarus spicatus. Fact Sheet for South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources. Available online at
www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/BroadRiverspinycrayfish.pdf. Last accessed April 17, 2009.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2005. South Carolina Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2005-2010. Available online at
http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/pdfs/action_plans/sc_action_plan.pdf. Last Accessed August
3, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 227

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus strigosus
Common Name:
Lean Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
Cambarus strigosus is found in the Broad and Little River basins in Elbert, Oglethorpe and
Wilkens counties, Georgia; Hobbs (1981) thinks it is probably more widespread in these basins in
the Piedmont Province.
Habitat:
The Lean crayfish forms elaborate burrows in sandy clay substrates, in densely matted roots, and
in high organic matter soils. NatureServe (2008) reports that this species digs complex burrows
and is usually found beneath water level.
Populations:
According to NatureServe (2008), C. strigosus is currently known from only 5 localities, with an
estimated total population of 1000 - 2500 individuals. This is a crude estimate and available data
is very limited.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled. The State of Georgia has classified it as
Threatened. It is ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries Society and as endangered by the
IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
Skelton (2008) reports that "[t]he small range of this species makes it vulnerable to land
disturbing activities around streams and wetlands."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Skelton (2008) indicates that "[a] large population is known from Nancy Hart State Park."
NatureServe (2008) reports that it is unknown if any occurrences of this species are appropriately
protected.
References:
Hobbs, Horton H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contrib. to Zool. 318:1549.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 228

 McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Skelton, C.E. 2008. Georgia Department of Natural Resources - Species account for Cambarus
strigosus. Available online at
www.georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/cambarus_strigosus.pdf. Last
accessed July 15, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 229

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus unestami
Common Name:
Blackbarred Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
This crayfish is confined to streams on Lookout and Sand Mountains (Tennessee River system) in
extreme northwestern Georgia and northeastern Alabama. Hobbs Jr. (1981) reports that this
species is found at altitudes of approximately 333 to 500 meters. Georgia DNR (2008) reports
that the range of this species is "the Cumberland Plateau and the Ridge and Valley physiographic
provinces in tributaries of Chattanooga, Cole City, and Lookout Creeks in northwestern Georgia
and extreme northeastern Alabama. These streams are in the Tennessee River drainage. It has also
been taken from tributaries to the Little River, which is part of the Coosa River system."
Habitat:
The Blackbarred crayfish lives in streams under rocks (Schuster and Taylor 2004). According to
Georgia DNR (2008), "[t]he blackbarred crayfish is usually collected in medium-sized streams
from beneath rocks or within leaf litter in moderate to swift current."
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are between 21 and 80 populations of this species with a
total of 2500-10,000 individuals. In Alabama, Cambarus unestami is known only from two
database records from the Tennessee River system in Jackson County (Mirarchi et al., 2004,
appendix 1.2 pub. separately; Schuster and Taylor, 2004; Schuster et al., 2008).
Population Trends:
The population trend for this species is not known.
Status:
In Alabama and Georgia this species has a status of imperiled due to restricted range and
proximity to a large metropolitan area (NatureServe 2008). The State of Georgia lists this species
as Threatened (Georgia DNR 2008), as does the American Fisheries Society (2008).
Habitat destruction:
According to NatureServe (2008), this species' range is located adjacent to the expanding
Chattanooga, Tennessee metropolitan area. Development pressures from road construction,
human residence and commercial enterprises will likely reduce water quality and degrade or
destroy habitat.
Georgia DNR (2008) states that "[t]he small range size of this species makes it vulnerable to
extirpation. Heavy sedimentation resulting from poor development and land management
practices may cover substrates and other daytime hiding places on which crayfishes rely to avoid
predation."
The U.S. Forest Service (2008) reports that in the range of Cambarus unestami, "the viability of
many of the rare crustaceans is most threatened because of their small ranges. Impacts to habitats
that would reduce or extirpate local populations of other taxonomic groups might result in extinction of
some crustaceans. Crayfish are somewhat tolerant of desiccation, but permanent

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 230

 conversion of wetlands to pasture or urban uses could eliminate populations and lead to
extinctions."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species likely occurs in streams in Cloudland Canyon State Park (Georgia DNR 2008). No
information on any additional protection is available for this population. This crayfish is listed as
threatened in Georgia, which protects it from collection but not from habitat degradation.
Other factors:
According to Georgia DNR (2008), "the introduction of non-native crayfishes is a threat to all
native crayfishes."
References:
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Blackbarred crayfish fact sheet. Available
online at www.georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/cambarus_unestami.pdf.
Last accessed April 11, 2009.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.
Hobbs, Horton H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contrib. to Zool. 318:1549.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil.
2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for
Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.
Schuster, G. A. and C.A. Taylor. 2004. Report on the crayfishes of Alabama: literature and
museum database review, species list with abbreviated annotations and proposed conservation
statuses. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report, 2004(12): 47 pp.
Schuster, G.A., C.A. Taylor, and J. Johansen. 2008. An annotated checklist and preliminary
designation of drainage distributions of the crayfishes of Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3):
493-504.
Taylor, C.A.et al. 1996. Conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada.
Fisheries. 21(4): 25–38.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 231

 Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
US Forest Service (2008) Southern Forest Resource Assessment; Chapter 23, Aquatic Animals
and their Habitats. Available online at
http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_23e.pdf. Last accessed April 11, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 232

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus veteranus
Common Name:
Big Sandy Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Big Sandy crayfish is found in the upper Guyandotte River
and Bluestone River drainage of West Virginia, and the upper Big Sandy drainage in Virginia
(Buchanan and Dickerson counties) and Kentucky (Floyd and Pike counties). Recent fieldwork in
Kentucky found the species to occur in both Tug Fork (Pike County) and Levisa Fork (Floyd
County) of the Big Sandy drainage. There are now seven confirmed sites in Kentucky. More
fieldwork will probably identify additional populations. Jezerinac and Stocker (1989) failed to
find the Big Sandy crayfish in the Guyandotte river.
Habitat:
Cambarus veteranus inhabits moderately sized streams (10-20 meters wide) with bedrock, cobble,
boulder, and sand substrate and permanent, fast-flowing water.
Populations:
According to NatureServe (2008), this species occurs in three river drainages in small areas in
KY, VA, and WV. There are 7 occurrences in KY, 8 in VA and 16 in WV. The 16 WV
occurrences includes 8 pre-1971 occurrences, 7 from 1988-89 and 1 update in 2000. Despite
the historic occurences, the species has been sought every year since 2000 in WV without
success.
In Kentucky, it is known only from the upper portions of the Big Sandy River drainage in Floyd
and Pike Cos. and a single collection from the Red River in Estill Co. (Kentucky River drainage).
The Big Sandy Crayfish exists in the Eastern Kentucky University Crayfish Collection, but
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports this species is very rapidly declining in the short-term, by 50-70
percent, stating: "Special efforts have been made to collect this species from adjacent streams in
neighboring counties but to no avail (Jezerinac et al. 1995). The species has lost half of its
distribution in Virginia, is near extirpation in West Virginia, and still occupies a small portion of
the Russell Fork mainstem in Kentucky (R. Thoma, pers. comm., 2009). he species has been
searched for every year since 2000 in WV without success including intensive survey effort based
on habitat suitability modeling (Channell, 2004)." This crayfish has suffered long-term decline of
up to 75 percent.
Status:
The Big Sandy crayfish is critically imperiled in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia
(NatureServe 2008). Kentucky lists the Big Sandy Crayfish as a species of Special Concern, and
Tennessee considers this species to be of Greatest Conservation Need. Virginia lists this species
as State Endangered. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classified this species as a Candidate 2 for
listing under the Endangered Species Act, before that status was discontinued. It is ranked as
threatened by the American Fisheries Society and as vulnerable by the IUCN. This rapidly
declining species is severely threatened by coal mining activities.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 233

 subsequent surveys have not found the species in the state (Taylor and Schuster, 2004).
Habitat destruction:
Continued coal mining presernts a significant threat to Cambarus veteranus (NatureServe 2008).
This crayfish is threatened by surface coal mining and by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA
2005). Mountaintop removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause significant downstream and
groundwater pollution. Pollutants associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance
in aquatic biota (Palmer et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders
of aquatic macroinvertebrates, disrupting the food web (Wood 2009). In West Virginia, there are
major mining threats in the area and plans for interstate construction as well (Jennifer Wykle, WV
DNR, pers. comm., January 2005 cited in NatureServe 2008). Jezerinac et al. 1995 report that
the species is absent from streams polluted with human-generated organic material from septic
tanks and coal dust.
Thoma (2009) reports that "Recent collection efforts by the author and others (Channell, 2004)
have failed to find the species in its West Virginia range. Mr. Zac Loughman, of West Liberty
University, has reported finding the species in very low numbers in Pinnacle Creek of Wyoming
County, WV (personal communication, June, 2009). It now appears nearly extirpated from West
Virginia. The Kentucky population appears, based on Taylor and Schuster (2004), to be primarily
derived from upstream populations in Virginia. The Virginia populations in the Russell Fork basin
and Dismal Creek of the Levisa Fork basin are the only known healthy, self sustaining populations.
Channell (2004) reported a collection from the mainstem Levisa Fork downstream of the Dismal
Creek confluence but followup sampling in spring 2009 failed to find the species in that area. It
seems likely that any individuals in Levisa Fork downstream Dismal Creek would likely be derived
from the Dismal Creek population and not represent a permanent, viable population. Garden
Creek, also in the Levisa Fork basin, was historically known to harbor C. veteranus but efforts to
find the species there failed. The stream is heavily impacted by bedload sediments derived from
coal mining activities."
Furthermore, "Much of its former range in Virginia is subject to dense, stream side urbanization
(Levisa Fork). These areas have been subjected to elevated non-point run off,
especially from roads, and, in unsewered areas, elevated nutrient loads from septic systems. Many
streams no longer impacted by septic input have been channelized during installation of instream
sewer lines. These stream reaches now have degraded habitat quality not suitable to supporting the
species. In Virginia, unlike West Virginia, coal mining impacts are limited. Few sampled sites had
significant loads of coal in the stream bed though some, like Garden Creek, were impacted by heavy
bedload sediments derived from coal mining. Only a few sites were found that lacked C. veteranus as a
consequence of coal mining impacts. The presence of a coking facility at the mouth of Dismal Creek
with Levisa Fork may, in part, explain the absence of the species in Levisa Fork. Also, considerable coal
transportation by truck occurs adjacent Dismal Creek and spills (coal & diesel fuel) resulting from
wrecks could negatively impact C. veteranus in its only habitat in the Levisa Fork basin. Since the
Dismal Creek population is the last viable population in the Levisa Fork basin (along with numerous 17
fish species) special attention should be accorded to protecting of this stream system."
Also, "Below the town of Pound, sewage is negatively impacting Pound River for at least six
miles. A site 5.5 miles downstream of the town was noticeably suffering the effects of excess sewage
and only two C. veteranus could be found after an extended search period. Sludge and excess algal
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 234

 growth was abundantly evident and the substrate was heavily imbedded with fine sediment. In McClure
River, downstream of McClure, heavy bed load sediments, primarily of sand, have eliminated much of
the favorable habitat and substrates are heavily imbedded."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that no occurrences of this species are appropriately protected. Its
state designations provide no habitat protection. This species is rapidly declining due to coal
mining, and urgent protection is needed for its habitat.
Thoma (2009) suggests that "if possible, West Virginia, Guyandotte River basin material should be
brought into captivity and efforts made to maintain the population. Its genetic status should be
determined as the two known populations may represent unique genetic units of the species."
References:
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Jezerinac, R. F., G. W. Stocker, and D. C. Tarter. 1995. The Crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae)
of West Virginia. Bulletin of the Ohio Biological Survey, Vol. 10, No. 1. Ohio Biological
Survey, College of Biological Sciences, The Ohio State University, and Nongame Wildlife and
Natural Heritage Programs, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio. 193
pp.
Jezerinac, R.F. and G.W. Stocker. 1989. Distribution of the stream crayfishes of the genus
Cambarus (Decapoda: Cambaridae) in West Virginia. Ohio Journal of Science. 89:2(2).
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Taylor, C.A. and G.A. Schuster. 2004. The Crayfishes of Kentucky. Illinois Natural History
Survey Special Publication, 28: viii + 210 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 235

 Tennessee Water Resources Agency (Unknown Date). Crustaceans Evaluated and Determined to
be of Greatest Conservation Need. Available online at
www.state.tn.us/twra/cwcs/CrustWebFile.pdf. Last Accessed April 6, 2009.
Thoma, R. 2009. The conservation status of Cambarus (Puncticambarus) veteranus, Big Sandy
Crayfish; Cambarus (Jugicambarus) jezerinaci, Spiny Scale Crayfish; and Cambarus (Cambarus)
sp. A, Blue Ridge Crayfish. Report to Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 236

 Scientific Name:
Cambarus williami
Common Name:
Brawleys Fork Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
This species has a limited range of the upper East Fork Stones River drainage in Cannon Co.,
Tennessee (Rohrbach and Withers, 2006; Bouchard and Bouchard 1995). The area covered by the
Brawleys Fork crayfish is less than 100 square km (less than about 40 square miles) according to
NatureServe (2008). Huggins (2002) reports that "[t]he species is apparently restricted to small,
spring-fed, gravel and chert-bottomed streams, where it inhabits burrows constructed in the
substrate. It was reported only from Brawley's Fork until the Division of Natural Heritage initiated
surveys in 2000. Currently, Cambarus williami is reported from 13 sites in 10 streams, all within
the escarpment of the Eastern Highland Rim in the East Fork Stones drainage."
Habitat:
Cambarus williami burrows primarily into gravel substrates in fast to moderately rapidly flowing
water. It has also been found under rocks at the shoreline and in the water (Bouchard and
Bouchard, 1995). It may be found in small burrows at or near the surface of cobble substrates,
both in areas of uniform cobble distribution and in more isolated pockets of such material in
streams with more pervalent bedrock (Rohrbach and Withers 2006).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are between 6 and 20 populations with up to 1000 total
individuals. Although originally known only from the type locality at Brawley's Fork (East Fork of
Stones River), Cannon Co., Tennessee, it has been discovered since 2004 in several new
localities (including the East Fork Stones River proper) bringing the total distribution to 18
streams in Cannon Co. (Rohrbach and Withers, 2006).
Status:
The State status of this species in TN is imperiled (NatureServe 2008). The Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency listed this species as Endangered in 2001. AFS and IUCN list this species as
Endangered based on its very limited range.
Habitat destruction:
During 2004-2005, installation of a gas pipeline along the East Fork Stones River occurred, with
poor erosion control and several stream crossings causing a significant amount of unconsolidated
material to enter the uppermost part of the watershed. The overall impacts to the watershed or
this species have not yet been determined. Outside Woodbury, the large rural agricultural areas
often provided cattle access to creeks, which were subsequently devoid of crayfish. Rohrbach and
Withers (2006) noted the primary threat to this species appears to be habitat desruction through
sedimentation, which is increasing due to residential growth particularly in the Woodbury area.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This crayfish is listed as endangered by the state of Tennessee, but this designation provides no
regulatory protection for the species' habitat. Currently, no public lands exist in the East Fork Stones

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 237

 River watershed of Cannon County.
References:
Bouchard, R.W. and J.W. Bouchard. 1995. Two new species and subgenera (Cambarus and
Orconectes) of crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) from the eastern United States. Notulae
Naturae, 471: 1-21.
Huggins, J.A. 2002. Abstracts of Papers Presented at the 111th Meeting. Journal of the
Tennessee Academy of Science.
Rohrbach, G.M. and D.I. Withers. 2006. A status survey of the Caney Fork crayfish (Cambarus
pristinus) and Hardin County crayfish (Orconectes wrighti) with notes on the Brawley's Fork
crayfish (Cambarus williami). Final report contract #ID-06-08125-00 submitted to the
Tennessee Natural Heritage Program, Nashville, Tennessee, 30 August 2006. 61 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 238

 Scientific Name:
Carex brysonii
Common Name:
Bryson's Sedge
G Rank:
G1
Range:
Bryson's sedge is endemic to Alabama's Cumberland Plateau where it occurs in several gorges in
the upper Sipsey Fork drainage, and part of the Black Warrior River drainage (NatureServe 2008).
There are only 5 known occurrences of this species, and natural heritage records indicate it is
present in Tuscaloosa, Walker, and Winston Counties.
Habitat:
This species occurs in shaded forest slopes above streams or riparian areas. Dominant species in
C. brysonii's preferred habitat include sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American hornbeam
(Carpinus caroliniana), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera),
eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and numerous pine species (Naczi 1993). The richwoods
sedge (Carex oligocarpa), and Boott's sedge (Carex picta) are also closely associated with C.
brysonii. Soil type within this species' preferred habitat is moist, sandy loam. While this species
has specific ecological requirements, the habitat it prefers is not naturally rare within its range.
Ecology:
This perennial sedge fruits in the spring (Flora of North America 2002).
Populations:
Only five occurrences of this species are known, and total population size is low (NatureServe
2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that while populations are currently considered stable, given the
imminent threats of habitat loss and invasive species and the very small global population size of
C. brysonii, the long-term viability of all occurrences is in jeopardy.
Status:
Small population size and restricted range make this species highly vulnerable to the loss or
degradation of habitat or population losses to other threats. NatureServe (2008) ranks the
Bryson's sedge as critically imperiled in Alabama.
Habitat destruction:
This species is imminently threatened by habitat-fragmenting agricultural and residential
development, and also by timber harvesting operations (Southern Appalachian Species Viability
Project 2002). Most populations of this species occur on public lands, and timber management is
extensive throughout much of Alabama (NatureServe 2008). Three of the five known
occurrences of Carex brysonii are also threatened by invasive species, particularly privet
(Ligustrum sinense). Recreational development and a proposed campground development also
apparently threatens one occurrence of this species on land adminstered by the Army Corps of
Engineers (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Two of the five known populations occur in the Sipsey Wilderness Area of the Bankhead National
Forest, where no evidence of disturbance was present as of 2004 (pers. comm. as cited in
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 239

 NatureServe 2008); these are the only protected occurrences of this species. No existing
regulatory mechanisms adequately protect other occurrences of the Bryson's sedge, nor are any
recovery or management programs being developed or implemented, though the species is
demonstrably in need of protection.
Other factors:
Because occurrences are small and sparsely distributed, they are vulnerable to stochastic
extinction events and other perils faced by small, isolated populations (NatureServe 2008).
Invasive privet also threatens this sedge (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002. Flora of North America north of Mexico.
Vol. 23. Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
xxiv + 608 pp.
Naczi, R. F. 1993. Carex brysonii and Carex godfreyi, new species of Carex section Griseae
(Cyperaceae) from the southeastern United States. Contributions Univ. Michigan Herbarium 19:
195-205.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 4, 2009 ).
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 240

 Scientific Name:
Carex impressinervia
Common Name:
Impressed-nerved Sedge
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Also known as the ravine sedge, C. impressinervia is currently known from sites in Alabama,
Mississippi, and North and South Carolina. Natural heritage records place C. impressinervia in
Autauga, Bibb, Bulter, Chilton, Monroe, Russell, and Wilcox Counties, Alabama, Forrest, George,
Marion, and Winston Counties, Mississippi, and Anson, Harnett, Montgomery, and Stanly
Counties, North Carolina (NatureServe 2008). It may be present in Georgia, but no occurrences
are confirmed. Known occurrences are widely scattered.
Habitat:
This sedge is found in moist to wet deciduous forests (Southern Piedmont) on slopes above small
streams or within ravines (FNA 2002).
Ecology:
The impressed-nerved sedge is a perennial species that forms dense clumps. It flowers MarchApril, and fruits April-May in the southern portion of its range (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
This plant is currently known from between 20 and 25 sites, all widely disjunct. Most populations
are found in Alabama and Mississippi, fewer in North and South Carolina. Total population size
is not known, though occurrences may contain thousands of individuals (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this species.
Status:
This species is currently known from relatively few disjunct sites, and most of these are not
considered to be of good viability. It is threatened across its range by various causes of habitat
loss. NatureServe (2008) ranks C. impressinervia as critically imperiled in Alabama, Mississippi,
and North and South Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
This plant is threatened primarily by conversion of habitat to agricultural, residential, or
silvicultural uses and unsustainable forest management practices (Southern Appalachian Species
Viability Project 2002). Carex impressinervia prefers mature forests, which are destroyed or
excluded by most current forestry practices. Hydrologic changes wrought by anthropogenic
activities also threaten this species and its habitat (USFS 2006).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect C. impressinervia; though it is listed as
threatened in North Carolina, this designation offers the species no substantial regulatory
protections.
Other factors:
This sedge may be threatened by invasive exotics like the Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 241

 japonica) (USFS 2006).
References:
Alabama Natural Heritage Program. 1994. Tri-state comprehensive study, Alabama-CoosaTallapoosa and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basins: Carex impressinervia Bryson.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002. Flora of North America north of Mexico.
Vol. 23. Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
xxiv + 608 pp.
Naczi, R., and C. Bryson. 1990. Noteworthy records of Carex (Cyperaceae) from the
southeastern United States. Bartonia 56: 49-58.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed
October 5, 2009.
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.
United States Forest Service (USFS). 2006. Uwharrie National Forest Ecological Sustainability
Analysis. Accessed online December 16, 2009 <<
www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/uwharrie_plan/eco_sustainability.pdf>>
Weakley, A. S. 2004. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia. Draft as of March 2004.
UNC Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill. Available online:
http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm. Accessed 2004.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 242

 Scientific Name:
Cicindela marginipennis
Common Name:
Cobblestone Tiger Beetle
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The cobblestone tiger beetle may have historically occurred in Alabama, Indiana, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Vermont, and West Virginia (NatureServe 2008). Current populations are found on the Coosa
River in Alabama, Whitewater River in Indiana, Sciota River in Ohio, Connecticut River in New
Hampshire and Vermont, and Delaware River in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Historic collection
sites in Mississippi and West Virginia, and perhaps in Ohio and Pennsylvania, were flooded by
dams. Alabama populations may be tenuous. There is uncertainty about the original range of this
species (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The cobblestone tiger beetle inhabits sandy cobble beaches on the banks or upstream side of
islands in free-flowing rivers (Pyzikiewicz 2006). These areas are characterized by sparse
vegetation due to seasonal flooding and/or scouring by ice in winter, which maintains the beetle’s
preferred cobblestone habitat (Pyzikiewicz 2006).
Ecology:
C. marginipennis is active during the summer months, generally from early July to early
September, though emergence and disappearance times vary annually. Full development from
larval stage to adult stage takes two years; larvae burrow into subterranean habitat in September
and remain there through the winter. Both larval and adult stages are predatory invertivores, sitand-wait foragers that feed on smaller insects, particularly ants and flies (NatureServe 2008).
Adults are volant and are capable of dispersing substantial distances, but the flow of individuals
and/or genes among populations has not been well studied.
Populations:
In 1995 there were only 25 populations of C. marginipennis throughout its range, and populations
of C. marginipennis are generally small (comprised of fewer than 100 adults) (NatureServe
2008). This beetle was likely extirpated from Pennsylvania, Mississippi, West Virginia, and
Alabama by dam-related flooding (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the cobblestone tiger beetle has experienced long-term declines
of up to 90 percent in parts of its range, and populations continue to decline.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists this species as critically imperiled in Alabama, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West Virginia, and imperiled in Indiana and Ohio.
It is not ranked or under review in Maryland and South Carolina, and reportedly extirpated from
Mississippi. The cobblestone tiger beetle is listed as threatened in Ohio, Vermont, and West
Virginia, and as endangered in New Hampshire. It has been a candidate for federal listing since
1997 (McCollough 1997).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 243

 Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss caused by dam construction and operation is considered the greatest threat to C.
marginipennis (Kinsley and Schultz 1997, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
2005, NatureServe 2008). Dams and other impoundments destroy cobblestone tiger beetle habitat
by prolonging seasonal inundation or permanently submerging formerly terrestrial habitat, killing
both larvae and adults in their subterranean burrows. Parts of this species’ historical range in
Pennsylvania and West Virginia have been flooded by dams, causing their local extirpation, and
the single known occurrence in Mississippi was destroyed by the Tenn-Tom Waterway
(NatureServe 2008). Dams have been proposed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont, and New
Hampshire, but are not actively being considered at present (NatureServe 2008). Impoundment
and disruption of natural flooding regimes can also cause cobble bars to become overgrown with
dense herbaceous and shrub vegetation, rendering them unsuitable for this beetle (New York State
Dept. of Environmental Conservation 2005).
Canoeists, campers, and all-terrain vehicle riders can also destroy beetle habitat by crushing
stones and compacting soil habitat, and may simultaneously kill larvae (Pyzikiewicz 2006). In
studies of other rare tiger beetle species, populations were small to nonexistent in areas of heavy
recreation and larger in areas where recreation was limited and vehicles were prohibited (USFWS
1990).
The New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (2005) reports that this beetle is
threatened by gravel mining, ATV use, dams, and channelization, stating: “There are a number of
existing (gravel mining) permits on both the Genesee River (Taft 2002) and Cattaraugus Creek
that have the potential to negatively impact populations of Cicindela marginipennis. Off road
vehicle use of cobble bars can destroy larval habitat and has been noted as a threat both in the
literature and during on site surveys in western New York . . . Population declines would be
expected to occur should gravel mining of cobble bar habitat and ATV use of cobble bar habitat
continue and/or if additional dams, and channelization projects take place on rivers and creeks that
support these species. Cicindela marginipennis, if truly present on just two rivers in the state,
could especially face extirpation if gravel mining and other threats are widespread on the two
rivers.”
Overutilization:
Intensive collecting by private collectors has been noted as a threat to some species of tiger beetle
and is a potential threat to Cicindela marginipennis (New York State Dept. of Environmental
Protection 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Cobblestone Tiger Beetle: though it is
listed as state-endangered or state-threatened in several states, these designations do not afford
any significant regulatory protection.
While invertebrates like the Cobblestone Tiger Beetle certainly benefit from broader-scale
conservation efforts designed to protect vertebrates and other more wide-ranging taxa, many
invertebrates are fine-scale habitat specialists, and as such, require more precise, fine-tuned
protections (McCollough 1997).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 244

 References:
Kinsley, C. B., and T. D. Schultz. 1997. The Biology of Tiger Beetles and a guide to the species
of the South Atlantic States. Virginia Museum of Natural
History, Special Publication Number 5. 210 pp.
McCollough, M. 1997. Conservation of invertebrates in Maine and New England: perspectives
and prognoses. Northeastern Naturalist 4: 261-278.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 4, 2009 ).
New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation. 2005. New York State Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Appendix A5. Species Group Reports for Insects. Accessed
March 30, 2010 at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/appendixa5.pdf
Pyzikiewicz, A.J. 2006. New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan. Accessed online July 3, 2009
<<http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/Wildlife_Plan/WAP_pieces/WAP_App_A_Invertebr
ates.pdf >>
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
determination of threatened status for the Puritan tiger beetle and the northeastern beach tiger
beetle. Federal Register 55: 32088-32094.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 245

 Scientific Name:
Clonophis kirtlandii
Common Name:
Kirtland's Snake
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The Kirtland’s Snake is a small, nonpoisonous snake species found in the Midwestern and
Southeastern United States. It is currently known in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio,
and Pennsylvania, though its historical range was significantly larger (NatureServe 2008).
Wilsmann and Sellers (1988) reported that Kirtland's snake was once known from more than 100
counties in eight states, but that since 1980, it has been observed in only one quarter of those
counties.
Habitat:
The Kirtland's snake occupies wet, relict prairie areas, including prairie fens, meadow wetlands,
open and wooded wetlands, seasonal marshes, open swamps, and other water-associated habitat
(NatureServe 2008). However, because these habitats are increasingly rare, the snake is currently
found most often in urban areas: vacant lots near to streams or wetlands provide the closest
approximation of their preferred habitat in most regions. These urban populations are likely
remnants of larger populations that have been mostly extirpated by urbanization, although they can
be quite abundant (Minton et al. 1983, Minton 2001). A secretive species, C. kirtlandii is most
often found beneath debris or underground, often using burrows excavated by other species
(Harding 1993). Fossorial habitat is more thermally moderate (fewer temperature extremes),
more humid, and provides food resources for this snake, which feeds on earthworms, slugs, and
leeches (Wilsmann and Sellers 1988, Conant 1943, Minton 1972).
Ecology:
This species feeds on earthworms, slugs, and leeches (Wilsman and Sellers 1988, Conant 1943,
Minton 1972). While the Kirtland’s snake regularly consumes native slug species (Deroceras
spp.), it will not feed on non-native, introduced European slugs, Limax maximus (Tucker 1994).
Both adults and juveniles aestivate or hibernate during periods of extreme heat or cold, though
active individuals have been observed aboveground in all months (pers. comm. as cited in
NatureServe 2008). Mating occurs in early summer, and parturition in late summer or early fall; clutch
size reportedly ranges from 4 to 15 young (USDA FS 2004, Conant 1943, Tucker 1976).
Populations:
Total population size is unknown but estimated to be at least a few thousand (NatureServe 2008).
Dense populations are found in several locations, though the species has declined across its entire
range in recent decades (Harding 1997, Barbour 1971). Kirtland’s snake was once known in
more than 100 counties in eight states, but since 1980 it has been observed in just a quarter of that
historical range. Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana contain a significant proportion of the remaining
populations (Wilsmann and Sellers 1988). No studies have been conducted on the population
biology of this species, which makes determining population viability challenging (USDA FS
2004).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 246

 Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) determined that the Kirtland's snake has experienced major declines (up to
90%) in recent decades, and that popluations continue to decline rapidly.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Kirtland's Snake is critically imperiled in Michigan and
Missouri (a single record from 1964), imperiled in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio, and
extirpated from Pennsylvania.
It is state-listed as endangered in Indiana, Pennsylvania (last recorded in 1965), and threatened in
lllinois, Ohio, and Kentucky.
Habitat destruction:
Development, both residential and agricultural, and all associated habitat loss, fragmentation, and
degradation are the primary threats to the Kirtland’s snake (NatureServe 2008). Historically,
most of the snake’s habitat has been lost to agricultural land use (Wilsmann and Sellers 1988), but
as urban and suburban sprawl continue to encroach on formerly undeveloped lands, residential
development has become a substantial driver of C. kirtlandii’s decline. Remnant populations
occupy patchy remaining habitat in these developed areas, but are small, isolated, and therefore
highly vulnerable to extirpation by further development.
Overutilization:
Collection for the pet trade poses a threat to many populations, and should be prohibited to curtail
further losses from this practice (Harding 1997).
Disease or predation:
Natural predators include other snakes, birds, carnivorous mammals, and some fish species
(Wilsmann and Sellers 1988). While it is not thought that natural levels of predation exert a
significant detrimental force on populations of C. kirtlandii, additive mortality perpetrated by
domestic pets present in developed areas may be unsustainable. No data has been collected on
diseases that may affect the Kirtland’s snake (USDA FS 2004).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that few occurrences are appropriately protected or managed. A rangewide survey conducted in 1985 indicates that two populations of this snake were located on
designated natural areas, and two in wildlife sanctuaries (NatureServe 2008). Though the
Kirtland’s snake is listed as state endangered, protected, or as a species of special conservation
concern in several states, this designation affords no significant regulatory protections to the
species. The Kirtland’s snake occurs in the Hoosier National Forest (Indiana) and the HuronManistee National Forest (Michigan), and is listed as a Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, but
management plans are not specifically tailored to this species in any locations (USDA FS 2004).
It can thus be concluded that existing regulatory mechanisms do not adequately protect this rare
and declining snake species.
Other factors:
Other factors widely cited in the decline of the Kirtland’s snake include:
•Agricultural pesticides that permeate watersheds and soil: Wilsmann and Sellers (1988) report an
absence of the Kirtland’s snake from habitat contaminated by chemical pollutants. The
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 247

 replacement of natural fire regimes by herbicides as a means of controlling ecological succession
also poses a threat to the Kirtland’s snake and all other species with which it co-occurs (USDA FS
2004).
•Collection of individuals for the pet trade: Kirtland’s snake has been shown to do poorly in
captivity – individuals collected can thus be seen as absolute losses to the greater population
(Conant 1943)
•Climate change
•Competition from invasive or non-native species (NatureServe 2008)
Additionally, because the burrows excavated by crayfish are so commonly used by C. kirtlandii,
activities that harm crayfish or crayfish habitat, such as water pollution or alteration to local
hydrological regimes, are also detrimental to this species (USDA FS 2004). The Kirtland snake’s
environmental specificity is a natural part of its life history that makes it highly vulnerable to
habitat losses. In developed areas, the Kirtland’s snake is also vulnerable to mortality on roads and
in mowed areas, which may have a detrimental influence on population health or persistence:
Minton (1972) reports 18 dead C. kirtlandii on 0.4 miles of suburban road (Bavetz 1993,
Dalrymple and Reichenbach 1984). Finally, prescribed burns that occur in the summer months
when C. kirtlandii is most active may result in direct disturbance or mortality (Seigel 1986).
References:
Barbour, R. W. 1971. Amphibians and reptiles of Kentucky. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington.
Bavetz, M. 1993. Geographic variation, distribution, and status of Kirtland’s snake, Clonophis
kirtlandii (Kennicott) in Illinois. MS Thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL.
Bavetz, M. 1994. Geographic variation, status, and distribution of Kirtland’s snake (Clonophis
kirtlandii Kennicott) in Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science, 87(3 &
4):151-163.
Conant, R. 1943. Studies on North American Water Snakes – 1. Natrix kirtlandii (Kennicott).
American Midland Naturalist, 29(2):313-341.
Dalrymple, G. H. and N. G. Reichenbach. 1984. Management of an endangered species of snake
in Ohio, USA. Biological Conservation, 30:195-200.
Minton, S. A. 1972. Amphibians and reptiles of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science
Monograph 3.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 11, 2009).
Seigel, R. A. 1986. Ecology and conservation of an endangered rattlesnake, Sistrurus catenatus,
in Missouri, USA. Biological Conservation, 35:333-346.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 248

 Tucker, J. K. 1994. A laboratory investigation of fossorial behavior in Kirtland’s snake,
Clonophis kirtlandii (Kennicott) (Serpentes: Colubridae), with some comments on management
of the species. Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society, 29(5):93-94.
Wilsmann, L. A. and M. A. Sellers. 1988. Clonophis kirtlandii Rangewide Survey. Final report
submitted to the U.S. FWS Region 3, Twin Cities, MN.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 249

 Scientific Name:
Cordulegaster sayi
Common Name:
Say's Spiketail
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Say's spiketail resides in the Florida Panhandle and Peninsula south to Gainesville and north to
central Georgia (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Eggs and larvae of this species are found in silt of seeps, while adults forage in weedy fields
(NatureServe 2008). This dragonfly requires a specific combination of adjacent habitats-- seeps
in or near deciduous forest with openings nearby (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
C. sayi is known from 20 populations in Florida and southeastern Georgia (NatureServe 2008).
There are an estimated 250 - 10,000 individuals in toto, with probably hundreds of larvae per site,
but relatively few mature.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is declining in the short term, based on a former
large colony in Gainesville, Florida being reduced to low density by development.
Status:
Cordulegaster sayi has a very limited range and is threatened by development (NatureServe 2008).
Its habitat is more specialized and vulnerable then co-existing gomphids. It also has a specific
combination of adjacent habitats that is needed for larvae and adults.The known localities are few
and fragmented, and certain populations (Gainesville, Florida) are declining (Abbott, 2007). Its
state rankings are FL (S2), GA (S1S2), NC (SNA).
C. sayi was denied listing as Endangered under the Federal ESA "because the taxon presently is not
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future." 60 Fed. Reg. 36380,
July 17, 1995.
A Positive 90-day finding was made on October, 26, 1994. 59 Fed.Reg. 53776. This finding was
based on the potential devastation of the largest known breeding area by a proposed City of
Gainesville flood-control project.
It was a Federal C-2 Candidate species until that list was abolished. The State of Georgia lists
Cordulegaster sayi as Threatened. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 391-4-10-.09.
Habitat destruction:
Pesticides, tree-cutting and subsequent run-off destroy necessary habitat, according to
NatureServe (2008). Fields used for feeding are also often altered for development.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 250

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to NatureServe (2008), most known sites are publicly owned. In Florida C. sayi occurs
in two state parks, a state preserve, two state forests, and a military base. In Georgia it occurs in a
state park and a military reservation.
It is considered a Sensitive Species by the U.S. Forest Service (2007).
References:
Abbott, J.C. 2007. Cordulegaster sayi. In: IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 01 December 2008.
Bick, G.H. 1983. Odonata at risk in conterminous United States and Canada. Odonatologica 12
(3):209-226.
Dunkle, S.W., 1989. Dragonflies of the Florida Peninsula, Bermuda and the Bahamas. Scientific
Publishers, Gainesville, FL. 154 pp.
Lohmann, H. 1992. Revision der Cordulegastridae 1. Opuscula Zoologica Flumensia 96:1-18.
Needham, James G., and Minter J. Westfall, Jr. 1954. A Manual of the Dragonflies of North
America (Anisoptera). University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 615 p.
Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum
of Natural History University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper Number 56:86 pp.
U.S. Forest Service. 2007. Environmental Assessment for Apalachicola National Forest
Motorized Route Designation. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/florida/apalachicola/resources/documents/access/apalachicola_access_e
a_sep2007.pdf. Last accessed March 6, 2010.
Wells, Susan M., et al. 1983. The IUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
632 p.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 251

 Scientific Name:
Coreopsis integrifolia
Common Name:
Ciliate-leaf Tickseed
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The ciliate-leaf tickseed is a rare species endemic to the Southeast United States. It is known
from just a few widely scattered locations in northern Florida, southern Georgia, and southeastern
South Carolina (NatureServe 2008). Natural heritage records show this species is present in
Florida's Calhoun, Jackson, Nassau, St. Johns, and Washington Counties, in Georgia's Calhoun,
Camden, Decatur, and Glynn Counties, and in South Carolina's Berkeley, Charleston, and Horry
Counties (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant occurs on moist sandy banks and low, flat floodplains of rivers and creeks (NatureServe
2008).
Ecology:
The tickseed is a perennial herb that flowers in late summer (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are few populations of this species rangewide, and global population size is not known.
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available
Status:
This species is found in a few widely scattered locations, is considered rare, and is widely
threatened by habitat destruction. NatureServe (2008) ranks the ciliate-leaf tickseed as critically
imperiled in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
The tickseed is threatened by dams, diversions, and alterations to natural hydrological patterns that
may either inundate or dessicate its habitat, by clearcutting in bottomland habitat, and by mowing
or herbicide application on roadside verges or right-of-way areas (Chafin 2000, NatureServe
2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the ciliate-leaf tickseed - it is listed as
endangered in Florida, but this designation affords it no substantive regulatory protections.
References:
Chafin, L. G. 2000. Field guide to the rare plants of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory,
Tallahassee.
Clewell, A.F. 1985. Guide to vascular plants of the Florida panhandle. Florida State Univ. Press,
Tallahassee, Florida. 605 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 252

 Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States. Vol. 1. Asteraceae. Univ.
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 261 pp.
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United
States: Dicotyledons. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.
Jones, S.B., Jr., and N.C. Coile. 1988. The distribution of the vascular flora of Georgia. Dept.
Botany, Univ. Georgia, Athens. 230 pp.
Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada,
and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Smith, E.B. 1976. A biosystematic survey of Coreopsis in eastern United States and Canada. Sida
6: 123-215.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 253

 Scientific Name:
Crangonyx grandimanus
Common Name:
Florida Cave Amphipod
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
According to NatureServe (2008) the Florida Cave Amphipod has a range of 100-250 square km
(about 40-100 square miles). It is known from 12 counties in Florida, USA. Most of these are in
the northern part of the peninsula and the nearby eastern panhandle, with approximately half of the
occurrences lying within the Suwannee River drainage. Other sites are clustered in the Woodville
Karst region south of Tallahassee, and along the Gulf coast north of Tampa Bay. It is not known
west of the Ochlockonee River. The Dade County occurence in southern Florida is an odd outlier.
Habitat:
Crangonyx grandimanus is found in caves, wells, and karst springs (Zhang and Holsinger 2003).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) grossly estimates that there are between 6 and 80 populations of this species,
with 1000 - 2500 individuals. It has been collected from at least 20 sites in 12 counties (Alachua,
Citrus, Dade, Gilchrist, Hernando, Leon, Levy, Madison, Marion, Pasco, Suwanne, Wakulla Cos.)
in Florida, USA (Zhang and Holsinger, 2003; Walsh, 2001), so it is probable that more
occurrences could exist. At least some of the known occurrences are united by a common
aquifers. The exact number of individuals is unknown. Although relatively widespread, the species
is not common, and population densities appear to be low.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that Crangonyx grandimanus is endemic to Florida, with relatively
few known occurrences, most of which are unprotected at present. Its status in Florida is
imperiled. It was a Federal C-2 Candidate Species until that list was abolished. The State of
Florida classifies it as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It is ranked as vulnerable by the
IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) states that C. grandimanus is probably sensitive to degradation of aquifers and
alteration of detrital flow.
According to Walsh (2001): “Perhaps the most serious potential threat to Florida’s hypogean and
spring faunas is ground-water pollution and/or saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and
aquifer resources are increasingly tapped. Streever (1992, 1995) reported on a kill and post-kill
recovery of the troglobitic Santa Fe Cave Crayfish (Procambarus erythrops) and three
troglophiles that may have been due to physicochemical changes associated with flushing of
contaminants and/or Suwannee River water during a flood event. In recent years, there have been
notable increases in contaminants and nutrients within some Florida ground-water sources (e.g.,
Katz and others, 1999). Eutrophication in spring habitats may result in greater algal growth,
increased turbidity, and physicochemical and biological changes that can be detrimental to native
species.”

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 254

 The Florida Department of Community Affairs (2008) states that Florida’s freshwater springs
system is threatened. Major causes of problems in springs include landscaping, development and
urban sprawl, water consumption, dumping in sinkholes, agriculture and livestock, golf courses
and other recreation. These threats could be avoided by state acquisition of the springs, or through
comprehensive land use planning.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Crangonyx grandimanus occurs in the caves of Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park, and in the
springs of Peacock Springs and Manatee Springs State Parks (Florida DEP 2002, 2004, 2007)
which provides habitat protection from development but not from pollution or recreation. There
are no existing regulatory mechanisms which adequately protect this species.
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1983. How to Know the Freshwater Crustacea. Wm. C. Brown Co.
Publishers. Dubuque, Iowa. 277 pp.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
December 17, 2009.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. Peacock Springs State Park
Management Plan. Available online at
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Parks/planning/parkplans/PeacockSpringsStatePark.pdf.
Last accessed January 4, 2010.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Manatee Springs State Park
Management Plan. Available online at
http://tlhwww4.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/ManateeSpringsStatePark.pdf. Last
accessed January 4, 2010.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park
Unit Management Plan. Available online at
http://www.floridaenergy.org/parks/planning/parkplans/EdwardBallWakullaSpringsStatePark.pdf.
Last accessed December 23, 2009.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Franz, Richard (Dick). Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611. 352/392-1721; SUNCOM 622-1721.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 255

 Holsinger, John R. 1972. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, Identification Manual No. 5: The
Freshwater Amphipod Crus- taceans (Gammaridae) of North America. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 89 p.
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.
Zhang, J. and J.R. Holsinger. 2003. Systematics of the freshwater amphipod genus Crangonyx
(Crangonyctidae) in North America. Virginia Museum of Natural History Memoir, 6: 274 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 256

 Scientific Name:
Crangonyx hobbsi
Common Name:
Hobb's Cave Amphipod
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the range of Crangonyx hobbsi is less than 100-250 square km
(less than about 40 to 100 square miles). It is endemic to Florida , where it occurs mostly in the
northern peninsula and adjacent eastern panhandle. It is currently known from 13 counties,
including Alachua, Citrus, Columbia, Dade, Gilchrist, Hernando, Leon, Levy, Madison, Marion,
Pasco, Suwannee, and Wakulla. It has not been found west of the Ochlockonee River.
Approximately half of known sites occur in the Suwannee River drainage. The Dade County
occurrence in southern Florida is widely disjunct from others.
Habitat:
This species occurs in subterranean fresh waters in caves and wells in limestone bedrock (Zhang
and Holsinger 2003). It is usually found near entrances and detritus.
Populations:
Currently more than three dozen occurrences of this species are known, all in submerged caves in
Florida (Walsh 2001). Additional, undiscovered occurrences may exist. Zhang and Holsinger
(2003) list Alachua, Citrus, Columbia, Dade, Gilchrist, Hernando, Leon, Levy, Madison, Marion,
Pasco, Suwanne, Walkulla Cos. Population size and trend have not been reported.
Status:
Hobb's cave amphipod is endemic to Florida, and although it has a fairly wide range within the
state, there are no known protected populations (NatureServe 2008). Its status in Florida is
critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008). In 1985, the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined
that this species warranted listing under the Endangered Species Act, but was precluded by efforts
to list other species. After that, it was a Federal C-2 Candidate Species until that list was
abolished. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
According to NatureServe (2008), C. hobbsi is potentially susceptible to changes in aquifer water
quality and disruption of detrital flow, both as a result of human disturbance.
According to Walsh (2001): “Perhaps the most serious potential threat to Florida’s hypogean and
spring faunas is ground-water pollution and/or saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and
aquifer resources are increasingly tapped. Streever (1992, 1995) reported on a kill and post-kill
recovery of the troglobitic Santa Fe Cave Crayfish (Procambarus erythrops) and three
troglophiles that may have been due to physicochemical changes associated with flushing of
contaminants and/or Suwannee River water during a flood event. In recent years, there have been
notable increases in contaminants and nutrients within some Florida ground-water sources (e.g.,
Katz and others, 1999). Eutrophication in spring habitats may result in greater algal growth,
increased turbidity, and physicochemical and biological changes that can be detrimental to native
species.”

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 257

 The Florida Department of Community Affairs (2008) states that Florida’s freshwater springs
system is threatened. Major causes of problems in springs include landscaping, development and
urban sprawl, water consumption, dumping in sinkholes, agriculture and livestock, golf courses
and other recreation. These threats could be avoided by state acquisition of the springs, or through
comprehensive land use planning.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Hobb's Cave amphipod may occur in caves on the Ocala National Forest, where it is a USFS
Sensitive Species, but this designation provides no regulatory protection for this species. It also
occurs in the springs of Peacock Springs and Manatee Springs State Parks (Florida DEP 2002,
2004). No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1983. How to Know the Freshwater Crustacea. Wm. C. Brown Co.
Publishers. Dubuque, Iowa. 277 pp.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
December 17, 2009.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. Peacock Springs State Park
Management Plan. Available online at
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Parks/planning/parkplans/PeacockSpringsStatePark.pdf. Last accessed
January 14, 2010.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. Peacock Springs State Park
Management Plan. Available online at
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Parks/planning/parkplans/PeacockSpringsStatePark.pdf.
Last accessed January 4, 2010.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Manatee Springs State Park
Management Plan. Available online at
http://tlhwww4.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/ManateeSpringsStatePark.pdf. Last
accessed January 4, 2010.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Franz, Richard (Dick). Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611. 352/392-1721; SUNCOM 622-1721.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 258

 Holsinger, John R. 1972. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, Identification Manual No. 5: The
Freshwater Amphipod Crus- taceans (Gammaridae) of North America. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 89 p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. May 10, 1985. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Findings on Pending Petitions and Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 50 Federal
Register 19761.
U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Biological Evaluation – Wildlife Control Of Noxious Weeds, Ocala
National Forest. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/nnis/herbicide_project/Region8/weedcontrolwildlifeBE.doc.
Last accessed January 4, 2010.
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.
Zhang, J. and J.R. Holsinger. 2003. Systematics of the freshwater amphipod genus Crangonyx
(Crangonyctidae) in North America. Virginia Museum of Natural History Memoir, 6: 274 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 259

 Scientific Name:
Croton elliottii
Common Name:
Elliott's Croton
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Elliott's croton is endemic to the coastal plains of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and
historically Florida, though the species is now thought to be extirpated from Florida. Natural
heritage records indicate C. elliottii's presence in Barnwell, Aiken, and Clarendon Counties, South
Carolina, in Barbour, Geneva, and Houston Counties, Alabama, and in Baker, Decatur, and Grady
Counties, Georgia (NatureServe 2008). Suitable habitat is present in a very small part of this
range.
Habitat:
This plant is found along shorelines and exposed bottomlands, limesink ponds, lakes, and pools,
and Carolina bays, with occurrences sometimes extending up into flatwoods, fields, agricultural
areas, and pine plantations. Preferred substrate includes sand, sandy peat, and peat. It requires
annually fluctuating water levels, and abundance is highest in years with dry spring and summer
conditions and flooding during winter months which reduces the abundance of competing
perennial species. This plant seems to exploit disturbance to soils, as individuals have been
observed flourishing on plowed pond edges (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This plant has specific germination requirements; it prefers dry conditions in spring and summer,
and flooding in winter which eliminates competition from co-occurring perennials.
Populations:
Three occurrences of this plant have been confirmed in Alabama, 21 in South Carolina, and
approximately 51 in Georgia, though some of these could be consolidated as they are closely
occurring (NatureServe 2008). Global population size is unknown, and estimation is complicated
by the sporadic nature of this plant's population cycles. Because the species has such precise
requirements for germination, population size fluctuates greatly from year to year (Kral 1983).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) and other sources report that this species is in decline across its range, and
particularly in Alabama. Several sites in Barnwell County, SC, have not reported any occurrences
of this species since 2003, though it was historically present (P. McMillan pers. comm. cited in
NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This plant is declining across its already-small range and its habitat is rapidly being degraded or
lost to anthropogenic activities. NatureServe (2008) ranks C. elliottii as critically imperiled in
Alabama, and imperiled in Georgia and South Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
Disruptions to local hydrological regime (dams, diversions, or drainage) and conversion of habitat
to timber plantations, agricultural uses, or residential development are the most imminent threats

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 260

 to this species (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The majority of Georgia occurrences are located on the Ichauway Plantation/Joseph W. Jones
Ecological Research Center, which is managed so as to maintain natural conditions (prescribed
burns), protecting populations of C. elliottii. Beyond this reserve, no other populations of C.
elliottii are appropriately protected, and many occur on private lands. No existing regulatory
mechanisms adequately protect this species from the habitat loss that imperils it.
References:
Chafin, Linda G. Conservation Botanist. The State Botanical Garden of Georgia. The University
of Georgia, 2450 South Milledge Ave. Athens, GA 30606
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United
States: Dicotyledons. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.
Jones, S.B., Jr., and N.C. Coile. 1988. The distribution of the vascular flora of Georgia. Dept.
Botany, Univ. Georgia, Athens. 230 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. Vol I Isoetaceae through Euphorbiaceae; Vol IIAquifoliacea through Asteraceaa.
USDA Forest Service Atlanta Georiga. Technical Publication R8-TP2.
McMillan, Patrick. Personal communication. Curator, Campbell Museum/Clemson University
Herbarium, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 3, 2009.
Schotz, A. Community Ecologist/Botanist, Alabama Natural Heritage Program. Personal
Communication.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 261

 Scientific Name:
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Common Name:
Hellbender
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The hellbender once occurred in many eastern states, but has been extirpated from much of its
range. AmphibiaWeb (2010) provides this description of the hellbender's historic range:
"Historically, hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) were found in the Susquehanna system
(Atlantic drainage) in New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland; tributaries of the Savannah River
(Atlantic drainage) in South Carolina and Georgia; the Tenessee system in Georgia, Virginia,
Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Kentucky; and the Ohio system in New
York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Illinois
(eastern hellbenders; C. a. alleganiensis). A second cluster of populations inhabits portions of the
Missouri drainage in south-central Missouri; the Meramec (Mississippi drainage) in eastern
Missouri; and the White system in southern Missouri and north-central Arkansas (Ozark
hellbenders; C. a. bishopi). Cope (1889) listed a specimen in the U.S. National Museum from Des
Moines, Iowa, and Firschein (1951b) mentioned an unverified record from the Skunk River
(Mississippi drainage) in southeastern Iowa. Others have referred to the hellbender’s presence in
Iowa (e.g., Hay, 1892; McMullen and Roudabush, 1936), suggesting that Iowa might be within the
historical range. Firschein (1951b) convincingly discredited a specimen from Vernon County,
Missouri (Arkansas drainage). Two specimens from the Neosho River (Arkansas drainage) in
southeastern Kansas (Hall and Smith, 1947) have come under scrutiny. Based on the extreme
hiatus between the Kansas records and the nearest verified records to the east, several authors
have speculated that these specimens were either introduced (Smith and Kohler, 1977) or are
otherwise invalid (Dundee, 1971). Records from the Great Lakes, Louisiana, and New Jersey are
certainly invalid and represent introductions or confusion with other species (see summary in
Nickerson and Mays, 1973a)."
Habitat:
This salamander occurs in rocky, clear creeks and rivers, usually where there are large shelter
rocks. It generally avoids water warmer than 20 degrees C. Males prepare nests and attend eggs
beneath large flat rocks or submerged logs (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
AmphibiaWeb (2010) provides the following information on the ecology of the hellbender:
"A. Breeding.
i. Breeding migrations. The suggestion by Alexander (1927) that male hellbenders move many km to
reach their breeding grounds in the fall has not been supported by recent research. Most authorities agree
that no actual breeding migration takes place, although males may move short distances within their
home ranges to brooding sites.
ii. Breeding habitat. The breeding season is variable but occurs mainly in September and October,
although evidence of breeding activity as late as December and January has been reported for the Spring
River in Arkansas (Peterson et al., 1989). Only a few specific breeding dates are given in the literature.
Smith (1907) reported egg-laying dates from 28 August–8 September in six consecutive years starting in
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 262

 1906 in northwestern Pennsylvania. Swanson (1948) stated that egg-laying takes place about the 1
September in Venango County, Pennsylvania. The release of milt from captured males and the presence
of gravid females was documented between 7 September–11 October during two years of study in the
Blue River of Indiana (Kern, 1986b). Nests with eggs have been reported in the North Fork River,
Missouri, on 13 September (Nickerson and Mays, 1973a), and 2 and 8 October (Nickerson and Tohulka,
1986). Dundee and Dundee (1965) noted a nest containing eggs in the Niangua River, Missouri, on 14
November, and Johnson (1981) noted a clump of eggs in the same river on 19 September. Bothner and
Gottlieb (1991) reported nests in the Susquehanna River in New York on 10 and 11 September. Green
(1934) reported the spawning season of the hellbender in the vicinity of Elkins, West Virginia, to be
from the middle of August to early September. The release of milt from captured males was reported
from 20 August–11 September in the West Fork of the Greenbrier River in West Virginia (Humphries,
1999). A nest with eggs has also been reported from the Williams River in Webster County, West
Virginia, during September 1997 (S. Blackburn, personal communication).
B. Eggs.
i. Egg deposition sites. The beginning of the breeding season is marked by a change in behavior of
hellbenders, especially males. They leave their routine hiding places and move around the stream
bottom, even during daylight, exploring cavities under flat rocks and crevices or holes in the bedrock
(Smith, 1907). Eventually a male occupies a suitable site and may actively prepare a nest by moving
gravel to create a saucer-shaped depression (Bishop, 1941b). Peterson (1988) also reported males using
a hole in a mud-gravel bank for nesting. The males lie at the opening of their nests, frequently with their
heads exposed, waiting for gravid females. Females may enter nest sites voluntarily or they may be
forced into the cavity by the male. As soon as the female starts to deposit eggs, the male moves
alongside or slightly above the female and sprays the eggs with snowy-white seminal fluid that may take
the form of a cloudy mass or ropy chunks (Smith, 1907).
ii. Clutch size. A single female may deposit from 200 to > 400 eggs (Smith, 1907, 1912a; Bishop,
1941b, Nickerson and Mays, 1973a), but this may not represent all the eggs available for oviposition, as
> 20% of a female’s compliment may be resorbed (Topping and Ingersol, 1981; Petranka, 1998). Males
may accept several females into their nest cavity, so the total number of eggs in a single nest may be >
2,000 (Bishop, 1941b). Deposited eggs are often eaten by both males and females (Smith, 1907; Bishop,
1941b). The eggs are yellow, round, approximately 6 mm in diameter, and surrounded by two
transparent envelopes. The inner envelope is attached as a solid rope from egg to egg resulting in long
egg strings (Nickerson and Mays, 1973a). The eggs swell with water and eventually increase to 18 mm
in diameter (Smith, 1912a). It may take > 2 d for a female to expel her eggs, at which time she either
leaves the nest or is expelled by the male (Bishop, 1941b). Males usually remain in the nest cavity with
the eggs, and both Smith (1907) and Bishop (1941b) witnessed episodes of active nest guarding by
males. Bishop (1941b) also observed a brooding male swaying from side to side over the eggs, which
may increase the oxygen supply to the eggs. The duration of this brooding period varies, but Smith
(1907, 1912a,b) found males attending nests that contained embryos about 3 wk old.
Bishop (1941b) estimated the incubation period at 68–84 d for western New York and Pennsylvania.
Peterson (1988) encountered hatchlings in the Niangua River, Missouri, that he believed to be no more
than 45 d old. Temperature undoubtedly plays a major role in determining length of embryonic period.
Smith (1912) provides the most comprehensive data on embryonic development and should be consulted
for details.
C. Larvae/Metamorphosis.
i. Larval stage. Newly hatched larvae are approximately 30 mm TL and are well pigmented dorsally and
on the tail. The venter is unpigmented except for the yellow of the yolk sac. The mouth and eyes are
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 263

 conspicuous, the gills are short and flattened, the front limbs terminate in two lobes, and the hindlimbs
are paddle-shaped and unlobed (Bishop, 1941b). Development is rapid, and hatchlings double their size
during the first year (Bishop, 1941b). Larvae normally lose their external gills in the second summer
after hatching, at 100–130 mm TL (Smith, 1907; Bishop, 1941b; Nickerson and Mays, 1973a).
ii. Larval requirements.
a. Food. The diet of larval hellbenders has not been studied but probably includes invertebrates.
b. Cover. Nickerson and Mays (1973a) reported that larval hellbenders utilize small stones and chert for
cover. They also reported an anecdotal account of a larval hellbender taken from the interstices of a
gravel bed in an area of subsurface percolation. The scarcity of records for larval hellbenders compared
to adults supports this suggestion (Kern, 1986c; Petranka, 1998).
iii. Larval polymorphisms. None reported.iv. Features of metamorphosis. The major morphological
features of hellbender metamorphosis are the loss of the external gills and the attainment of adult color
pattern.
v. Post-metamorphic migrations. None known.
vi. Neoteny. Not reported.
D. Juvenile Habitat. Same as for adults.
E. Adult Habitat. Adult hellbenders are found in fast-flowing streams containing abundant cover in the
form of large flat rocks, bedrock shelves and crevices, and logs (Bishop, 1941b; Nickerson and Mays,
1973a).
F. Home Range Size. Home range has been reported in various forms for several populations of
hellbenders. Using minimum area convex polygon in Missouri, average home range size was 28 m2 for
females and 81 m2 for males (Peterson and Wilkinson, 1996). Coatney (1982) calculated an elliptical
home range of 90 m2 for seven Ozark hellbenders radio-tracked nocturnally for 2 wk. In Pennsylvania,
average inter-captured distance was 18.8 m for males and 18.7 m for females (Hillis and Bellis, 1971).
The mean activity radius for this population was 10.5 m. Calculated as a circular home range, the
average home range was 346.4 m2. Linear distance between captures in Tennessee ranged from 5–60 m
(Casey et al., 1993). Topping and Peterson (1985) provided evidence for size-specific movement in
hellbenders in Missouri. They demonstrated a tendency for upstream movements ranging from 2.3–25.7
m/d. In contrast, Peterson (1987) detected no net movement upstream or downstream in the Niangua
River, Missouri. Mean linear movement of hellbenders in a West Virginia stream was 20.1 m, ranging
from 0.8–70.2 m between captures at least 1 mo apart (Humphries, 1999).
G. Territories. Home ranges of hellbenders overlap (Peterson and Wilkinson, 1996), but they apparently
avoid being in the area of overlap at the same time (Coatney, 1982). However, hellbenders have been
observed in close proximity to each other at night without conflict between individuals (Humphries,
1999). Rarely is > 1 hellbender found beneath the same rock except during the breeding season (Smith,
1907; Hillis and Bellis, 1971; Nickerson and Mays, 1973a; Peterson, 1988), and they are known to
defend shelter rocks (Peterson and Wilkinson, 1996; Hillis and Bellis, 1971). Hellbenders will utilize
rocks recently vacated by other individuals (Hillis and Bellis, 1971; Peterson and Wilkinson, 1996;
Humphries, 1999). Male hellbenders become extremely territorial during the breeding season and will
defend nest holes or rocks (Smith, 1907; Bishop, 1941b; Peterson, 1988). Blais (1996) reported that
during the breeding season in New York, male hellbender's home ranges tended to overlap more than
those of females.
H. Aestivation/Avoiding Dessication. Not reported; however, Green (1934) stated that hellbenders in
West Virginia moved to deeper holes in summer to find colder water.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 264

 I. Seasonal Migrations. See "Breeding migrations" above. Seasonal change in nocturnal activity has
been reported in high elevation populations in West Virginia (Humphries and Pauley, in press).
Hellbenders were most active during early summer (May–June), with decreased activity in later months.
Nocturnal searches with flashlights were most productive in early summer in these populations;
however, nocturnal activity shifts have not been reported in other parts of the hellbender’s range.
Noeske and Nickerson (1979) reported on seasonal changes in activity rhythms in the laboratory.
J. Torpor (Hibernation). In most streams, hellbenders likely become inactive during winter.
Overwintering sites in New York included deep pools > 2 m deep, fast-flowing riffles that remained free
of ice cover, and deep water pockets within riffles 1.5–2 m deep (Blais, 1996). However, hellbenders
sometimes breed in Missouri and Arkansas during winter (Dundee and Dundee, 1965; Peterson et al.,
1989).
K. Interspecific Associations/Exclusions. None known.
L. Age/Size at Reproductive Maturity. Sexual maturity is reached from 300–400 mm TL, with males
normally maturing at a smaller size than females (Taber et al., 1975), although there is much variation
reported in the literature (see Petranka, 1998, for a review). Age at sexual maturity has been estimated at
3–4 yr (Smith, 1907) and 5–6 yr (Bishop, 1941b) for eastern populations and 5–6 yr (Dundee and
Dundee, 1965; Nickerson and Mays, 1973a) for Ozark populations.
M. Longevity. Hellbenders have survived as long as 29 yr in captivity (Nickerson and Mays, 1973a).
Extrapolations from growth rate data suggest that some large individuals may live as long as 30 yr in
nature (Taber et al., 1975; Peterson et al., 1983; Petranka, 1998).
N. Feeding Behavior. Crayfish are the most important food item for hellbenders, as indicated by their
position at the top of most food lists in the literature (Smith, 1907; Green, 1935; Bishop, 1941b;
Swanson, 1948). Other items that have been recorded include fish, insects, earthworms, snails, tadpoles,
fish eggs, other hellbenders, and hellbender eggs (Nickerson and Mays, 1973a)."
NatureServe (2008) provides the following information on hellbender ecology and life history:
"General Description: A large (up to 74 cm) salamander with a broad flattened head, wrinkled, fleshy
folds of skin along each side and a conspicuous gill slit (sometimes missing) just in front of each
forelimb (Green and Pauly 1987).
Diagnostic Characteristics: Adults differ from other large salamanders by lacking external gills and by
their strongly flattened head and body. Larvae have four limbs; external gills; flattened, fleshy toes; a
broad, flattened snout; and loose skin along the sides of the noncylindrical body.
Reproduction Comments: Lays eggs in late summer or fall (August, September, early October; e.g.,
Jensen et al., 2004, Herpetol. Rev. 35:156); winter breeding has been observed in the Spring River,
Arkansas (Peterson et al. 1989). Clutch size averages about 350-500; increases with female body length.
Several females may oviposit in same site. Males guard developing eggs. Larvae hatch in 1.5-3 months,
lose gills about 18 months after hatching. Sexually mature in 5-8 years (Minton 1972, Peterson et al.
1988). Longevity 25+ years.Ecology Comments: In Missouri, 80% of recaptures were within 30 m of
tagging site. Also in Missouri, average home range size was 28 sq m in females, 81 sq m in males; there
was considerable overlap in the home ranges of both males and females; number of rocks used as shelter
ranged from 1 to 13 (Peterson and Wilkinson 1996). In Pennsylvania, home range averaged 346 sq m
(Hillis and Bellis 1971).
Populations:
It is unknown how many populations of hellbender are still extant. There are many occurrences in
at least several dozen rivers, and the lack of new distributional records since 1995 suggests that
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 265

 relatively few occurrences remain undiscovered (NatureServe 2008). AmphibiaWeb (2010)
states: "Because of the secretive nature of hellbenders and their confusion with mudpuppies
(Necturus maculosus), the present range is not known with certainty. They are no longer present
in Iowa (if they ever occurred there), and they are almost certainly extirpated from the Ohio
drainage in Illinois, although there is a verified 1991 record from the Wabash River in White
County. Hellbenders have been eliminated from Indiana except for a small population in the Blue
River and the lower portions of the South Fork of the Blue River (Kern, 1986a). In Ohio,
Pfingsten (1989a) spent 2,000 person-hours searching for hellbenders from 1985–'88 and failed
to find any in the Miami River or its tributaries, but did locate them in the other main drainages of
the Ohio River. Populations in the remainder of the Ohio drainage are extant, as are most of those
in the Tennessee drainage. Green (1934) reported hellbenders to be common in the Ohio River,
but not so common in the tributaries near Huntington, West Virginia. Hellbenders were also
reported from the Ohio River near Marietta, Ohio (Krecker, 1916). Records for the hellbenders
in the Ohio River have not been reported since these early sightings. Humphries (1999) reported
hellbenders to still be common in many high elevation streams in West Virginia. Bothner and
Gottlieb (1991) studied the distribution and abundance of hellbenders in New York and found the
species in both the Allegheny and Susquehanna drainages. The same is true for both systems in
Pennsylvania and Maryland (Gates, 1983). No recent data are available for the Savannah drainage
populations in Georgia and South Carolina. Populations are also still found throughout the
species' historical range in Missouri and Arkansas (Trauth et al., 1992a,b; Trauth et al., 1993b;
LaClaire, no date)" (accessed April 12, 2010 at: http://www.amphibiaweb.org).
Population Trends:
Several populations of hellbender have been extirpated, and many others are near extirpation, or
dwindling. Anecdotal data indicate that the hellbender is declining across its range. Although
quantitative data are not available, the data that are available indicate that this species is in decline, and
that some extant populations may no longer be viable. In Indiana, although several nests have been
located during the past 11 years, evidence of juveniles has not been found (Nature Conservancy 2010).
Concerning the status of the species in Ohio, Lipps (2010) states, “Recent surveys in Ohio by Lipps and
Pfingsten have found an 80 percent decline in Hellbender populations compared to the mid-1980's.
Nearly all remaining populations are made up of very large (old) individuals, raising concerns about
recruitment of new individuals into aging populations.” In Georgia, a 2005 survey of all historic
hellbender streams found them to be absent at 38 percent of the sites they were originally reported from.
Of the historic streams that still contain hellbenders at the original reporting sites, 31 percent were
considered “unhealthy,” that is, they are not likely to support long-term, viable populations of this
species (Jensen and Humphries 2007).
Furniss (2003) reports that due to the life-history characteristics of this species, declines may not
become apparent until they are severe, stating “Hellbenders do not reproduce until approximately 7
years of age. Declines being observed presently may be the result of activities that occurred years
earlier. Because juvenile hellbenders are rarely observed, it takes many years to detect population trends.
The lack of recruitment in most all Ozark hellbender populations is a significant sign that little
reproduction has occurred in these populations for several years. Delayed reproduction, when paired
with a long life span, can disguise declines until they become fairly severe (Rogers, 2001). The present
distribution and status of Ozark hellbender populations in the White and Black River systems in
Arkansas and Missouri may be demonstrating the characteristics mentioned above. Genetic studies have
demonstrated repeatedly very low genetic diversity in hellbender populations, which may be a factor in
the decline of the species. The current combination of population fragmentation and habitat degradation
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 266

 may prohibit this species from recovering without the intervention of conservation measures designed to
facilitate hellbender recovery (Rogers, 2001)."
NatureServe (2008) reports that the hellbender has declined by up to 30 percent in the short-term and by
up to 75 percent in the long-term, stating: " Compared to historical conditions, the species has
significantly declined in population size, extent of occurrence, area of occupancy, and number and
condition of occurrences (subpopulations) to a moderate extent (actual degree of decline is unknown but
is closer to 25% than to 75%) (Nickerson and Mays 1973, Williams et al. 1981, Minton 2001, Wheeler
et al. 2003, Trauth et al. 2004, Phillips and Humphries 2005). Some populations in Illinois (Phillips et al.
1999, Phillips and Humphries 2005), Indiana (Kern 1986, Minton 2001), and Ohio (Pfingsten 1990)
have been extirpated. In Indiana, most reductions occurred between 1935 and 1965 (Minton 2001).
However, populations are still present in most of the historical range. For example, the species is still
common in many high-elevation streams in West Virginia (Humphries 1999). Populations still remain in
the Allegheny and Susquehanna drainages in New York (Bothner and Gottlieb 1991) and in those
systems in Pennsylvania and Maryland (Gates 1983). The species still occurs throughout the historical
range in Missouri and Arkansas (Phillips and Humphries 2005), although a population in the Spring
River in Arkansas is nearing extirpation (Trauth et al. 2004). Aside from the Spring River population,
good documentation of population declines is scarce (Phillips and Humphries 2005). Assessment of
status throughout the range is needed."
AmphibiaWeb (2010) states: "As early as 1957, it was noted that the hellbender's range was rapidly
shrinking as a result of human modification of stream habitats (Smith and Minton, 1957). Dundee
(1971) listed "siltation, general pollution, and thermal pollution" as being responsible for eliminating the
hellbender from "much of the Ohio River drainage, and from other industrialized regions." Bury et al.
(1980) mentioned channelization and impoundment of streams and rivers as an agent of decline
specifically for Alabama, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia. They also cited Nickerson
and Mays (1973) when implicating industrialization, agricultural runoff, and mine wastes as contributing
factors in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Other authors have alluded to the range-wide decline
in hellbender numbers (Williams et al., 1981; Gates et al., 1985). However, rigorous quantification of
effort is lacking in most hellbender surveys, so there are few data to back up these claims. The sole
exception of which we are aware, that of Trauth et al. (1992a), documented a drastic decline in
hellbenders along the Spring River of Arkansas. They attributed the decline to over-collection of
specimens for scientific purposes (see "Predators" above), habitat alteration related to recreational
activities, elimination of riparian habitats leading to an increase in the silt burden, and water pollution
associated with human occupation and development along the river. Rigorous historical abundance data
exist for other streams (see "Historical versus Current Abundance" above) and these areas should be
targeted for resurvey."
Historical versus Current Abundance. Historical data on abundance are available for only a few
populations and even in those cases, rigorous quantification of effort is lacking. For example, Green
(1935) reported catching 34 hellbenders between the hours of 8 (PM) and midnight on 21 June 1934 in
the headwaters of the Shavers Fork of the Cheat River (New River drainage of West Virginia).
Hellbenders were detected using an acetylene light, but the number of observers or the length of the
stream surveyed was not specified. Swanson (1948) reported collecting (and permanently removing)
over 650 hellbenders from a 4.8 km (3 mi) stretch of Big Sandy Creek (Allegheny drainage) in Venango
County, Pennsylvania, from 1932–'48. Other vague accounts are available for Bear Creek in the
Tennessee drainage of northeastern Mississippi (Ferguson, 1961b), French Creek in the Allegheny
drainage of northwestern Pennsylvania (Hillis and Bellis, 1971), and the streams in the Ohio River
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 267

 drainage of Ohio (Pfingsten, 1989a).
More rigorously documented abundance data are available for Allegheny River drainage of New York
State where Bothner and Goettlieb (1991) performed mark-recapture studies to estimate both abundance
and density at eight sites along Ischua Creek, Oswayo Creek, and the Allegheny River. Abundance
estimates ranged from 3–58 individuals in study areas that ranged from 424–14,003 m2 of stream bed. A
series of mark-recapture studies has been conducted in Missouri starting with Nickerson and Mays
(1973b), who estimated abundance at 1,142 hellbenders in a 2.67-km stretch of the North Fork River
(White River drainage) in 1969 and 269 hellbenders in a single riffle (4,600 m2) in the same river in
1970. Effort, in person-hours, was recorded as 750 in 1969 and 108 in 1970. Peterson et al. (1983)
conducted a mark-recapture study in the same riffle during 1977–'78, and their estimate of 231 fell
within the 95% confidence interval of Nickerson and Mays, indicating no change in abundance in that
riffle during a 7-yr period. Mark-recapture estimates of hellbender abundance ranging from 0.9–6.1
hellbenders/100 m2 were reported for the Spring and Eleven Point rivers (White River drainage of
Missouri and Arkansas) and Big Piney and Gasconade rivers (Missouri River drainage of Missouri)
during 1980–'82 (Peterson et al., 1988). Peterson (1987) captured 110 adults in a 2600-m2 study site in
the Niangua River in Missouri during 1985. Humphries (1999) conducted a mark-recapture study from
1998–'99 in the West Fork of the Greenbrier River in West Virginia. An abundance estimate of 31
individuals was found within a 216 m stretch of stream. The density in this section was 0.80
individuals/100 m2.
Four streams in the White River drainage of Missouri were surveyed in 1992 (Ziehmer, 1992). Numbers
encountered and effort were recorded as follows: Jack’s Fork, 4 in 66 person-hours; Current, 12 in 60
person-hours; North Fork, 122 in 49 person-hours; Bryant’s Creek, 0 in 22 person-hours. Trauth et al.
(1992a) surveyed seven sites on the Spring River (White River drainage of Arkansas) in 1991, including
two of the same sites that Peterson (1985) had studied between 1908 and 1982. Trauth et al. (1992a) did
not encounter any hellbenders at a site where Peterson had marked 60 and encountered only 5 where
Peterson had marked 310. This is the only evidence of decline in a hellbender population that has been
documented rigorously in the literature. "
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the hellbender as globally vulnerable because it has a wide range, but many
populations have declined or have been eliminated by dams, sedimentation, water pollution, and
overcollecting, and better information is needed on the conservation status of this species in much of its
range. It is ranked as critically imperiled in Maryland, Mississippi, Illinois, and Ohio, as imperiled in
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, New York, Virginia, and West Virginia, and as vulnerable in Kentucky,
Pennsylvania, and Tennessee (NatureServe 2008). It is classified by the IUCN as near threatened.
Hellbenders are classified as Endangered in Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, and Ohio; Rare in Georgia; Of
Special Concern or Species of Concern in New York, North Carolina, and Virginia; Watch List in
Missouri; and Deemed in Need of Management in Tennessee (AmphibiaWeb 2010). C.a. bishopi is a
federal candidate, and C.a. alleganiensis is a federal Species of Concern. Because the data which are
available indicate range-wide decline and ongoing threats, the Center is petitioning for the entire C.
alleganiensis species complex.
Concerning C.a. bishopi, Furniss (2003) states: “The viability of the Ozark hellbender is in question. A
decline in populations numbers begin in the mid 1980’s and was marked by a shift in age structure.
Today’s hellbender populations have fewer individuals and those left in the population are of a large
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 268

 size, indicating poor recruitment. The population declines of the Ozark hellbender is documented in a
study over a 20 period as declining by an average of approximately 70 percent. (Wheeler et al. 2003).
The cause(s) for this dramatic decline in population numbers and shift in age structure is unknown.”
Habitat Destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the principal threat to the hellbender's survival is degradation of habitat,
"including impoundments, channelization, ore and gravel mining, silt and nutrient runoff (e.g., from
timber harvest, agriculture, faulty septic and sewage treatment systems), other water pollution, and den
site disturbance due to recreational uses of rivers (Nickerson and Mays 1973, Mount 1975:109, Bury et
al. 1980, Williams et al. 1981, LaClaire 1993, Phillips et al. 1999, Wheeler et al. 1999, Minton 2001,
Trauth et al. 2004). The species depends on cool, flowing, well-oxygenated water, and it needs a coarse
(rocky) substrate. In agricultural regions, most of the former rocky habitat has been buried under silt
(Phillips et al. 1999). Hellbenders appear to be intolerant of heavy recreational use of the habitat"
(NatureServe 2008).
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (2005) reports the following threats to the hellbender’s
habitat: chemical alteration from municipal and industrial point sources, nutrient loading from confined
animal feeding operations, grazing, urban development, and point sources, sedimentation from grazing,
forestry, road construction, and urban development. The Society for the Study of Amphibians and
Reptiles (2000) reports that hellbenders in Arkansas are threatened by deforestation, human alteration of
cedar glades, and agriculture, and that populations of hellbenders in the Spring River are severely
imperiled.
Jensen and Humphries (2007) report that the hellbender in Georgia is threatened by “the deteriorating
quality of habitat resulting from stream impoundment, chemical pollution from agricultural and
industrial runoff, and siltation originating from adjacent land disturbance . . . Stream impoundment and
thus decreased water flow reduce the dissolved oxygen content necessary for efficient respiration of all
stream fauna which do not breathe air. Because hellbenders breathe almost exclusively through their
skin, toxic chemicals introduced into streams may become absorbed in their bodies. Acid rain may be
another agent of chemical pollution threatening this species. In addition, sedimentation often creates
unsuitable habitat by plugging the gaps beneath rocks used for shelter and breeding; suffocation of eggs
may occur as a result of persistent sediment influxes.” The Georgia Museum of Natural History (2008)
lists habitat destruction as a primary threat to the species in Georgia, particularly from siltation,
pollution, and impoundment.
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (2010) reports that hellbender habitat in Virginia
is threatened by water pollution and impoundments, stating: “Dams eliminate free-flowing sections of
rivers and produce low oxygen conditions on the river bottom. Untreated sewage, sedimentation, and
chemical runoff from lawns, fields, and parking lots all contribute to a reduction in their populations.
Because respiration is through the skin, any toxic substance in the water can have significant adverse
health effects. Removal of streamside vegetation and soil disturbance can cause sedimentation.
Sedimentation affects hellbender survival by suffocating eggs, filling in hiding places of the young and
killing invertebrates, such as crayfish they feed on.”
The Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources (2005) reports that hellbenders in the state are
threatened by gravel and sand quarrying, dredging, impoundments, woody debris removal, logging of
riparian zones for agriculture and development, channelization, coal mining, road construction, and
urbanization.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 269

 The Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources (2006) reports that hellbenders in the state are threatened by
sedimentation from erosion, mine run-off, dam construction, and pollution. The New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (2005) reports that hellbenders in New York are threatened
by channelization, silt loading, pollutants, dams, and bridge construction and repair. Lipps (2010)
reports that hellbenders in Ohio are threatened by pollution and degradation of stream habitat, removal
of rocks, and stream channelization and damming, and excessive siltation, resulting from the conversion
of forests to agriculture and human development. In Indiana, hellbenders are threatened by pollution,
siltation, and impoundment (The Nature Conservancy 2010). The Tennesssee Amphibian Monitoring
Program (2004) reports that hellbenders in Tennessee are threatened by impoundments and pollution.
Nickerson et al. (2002) report that even in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, hellbenders are
threatened by habitat loss and degradation, stating: “Salamander populations have been eliminated
within GSMNP streams downstream from road building and areas where road fill was utilized in
projects near streams (Huckabee et al., 1975). These salamander kills were associated with lowered pH
(4.5-5.9) and increased sulfate and metal concentrations, which occur naturally via leaching of
pyritiferous phyllite from geological formations within GSMNP (Huckabee et al., 1975). Disturbances
that expose the Anakeesta rock formations eliminate nearly all of a stream’s macroinvertebrates as well
as aquatic salamander populations (Kucken et al., 1994). The slightly acidic readings within Little River
and Noland Creek (Table1), suggest that water quality should be routinely monitored at those and other
GSMNP sites. Cryptobranchus alleganiensis have unique respiratory components, including a single
hemoglobin that does not show a Bohr effect (Taketa and Nickerson, 1973a, b), therefore, a shift toward
a more acidic habitat might negatively affect populations. Crayfish are the major diet of C. alleganiensis
throughout their range (Nickerson and Mays, 1973a; Nickerson and Ashton, 1983). The GSMNP
streams surveyed had low populations of crayfishes when compared to Ozark streams with high
populations of Cryptobranchus (Nickerson, unpubl. data). Several otters (Lutra canadensis) were
observed within Little River, and large populations of otters could significantly reduce crayfish
populations. Some aspects of fish population management may also be hazardous to Cryptobranchus and
Necturus survival. Use of chemicals to reduce “competitive and rough fish” populations are implicated
in Cryptobranchus and Necturus declines (Matson, 1990; C J. McCoy, pers. comm). In the past, Pronoxfish (liquid rotenone) has been used to eliminate fishes from Abrams and Indian Creeks and their
tributaries (Lennon and Parker, 1957, 1959). Rotenone undoubtedly affected salamander and
macroinvertebrate populations, the latter of which may have been part of the salamander food base. We
do not know the effects of electro-shocking on gravid Cryptobranchus, their eggs or larvae” (Nickerson
et al. 2002).
In a status report of the eastern hellbender, Mayasich et al. (2003) report: "As early as 1957 it was noted
that the hellbender's range was rapidly shrinking as a result of human modification of stream habitats
(Smith and Minton 1957). Indeed, destruction and modification of habitat is considered the main threat
to hellbender population persistence (Williams et al. 1981a) and to amphibian populations worldwide
(Wyman 1990). Dundee (1971) listed "siltation, general pollution, and thermal pollution"as being
responsible for eliminating the hellbender from "much of the Ohio River drainage, and from other
industrialized regions.” Bury et al. (1980) entioned channelization and impoundment of streams and
rivers as an agent of decline specifically for Alabama, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and West
Virginia. They also cited Nickerson and Mays (1973) when implicating industrialization, agricultural
runoff, and mine wastes as contributing factors in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Other authors
have alluded to the range-wide decline in hellbender numbers (Williams et al. 1981a, Gates et al. 1985).
However, rigorous quantification of effort is lacking in most hellbender surveys so there are few data to
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 270

 back up these claims. Exceptions to this circumstance, that of Trauth et al. (1992) and Wheeler et al.
(2003) documented drastic declines in hellbenders along rivers in Arkansas (Ozark hellbender) and
Missouri (Ozark and eastern hellbender). Although no data were collected to monitor potential causal
factors in theses studies the authors speculated that the declines were attributed to factors such as habitat
alteration and degradation, elimination of riparian habitats leading to an increase in the silt burden, and
water pollution associated with anthropogenic activities. Siltation: Evidence from studies of amphibian
populations in the Pacific Northwest (Welsh and Ollivier 1998) link fine sediment accumulation to
reduced densities of Pacific giant salamanders (Dicamptodon tenebrosus) which rely on coarse
streambed substrates as larval habitat. Sediment deposition effectively fills interstitial spaces among
coarse sediments reducing cover and foraging habitat. Although very little is known about the habitat
requirements of larval hellbenders, it is reasonable to suspect that coarse bottom substrates are vital as
refugia from predation and as foraging sites. Nickerson and Mays (1973) cite a personal communication
from S. Minton in which sediment accumulation is suspected of destroying eggs and juvenile
hellbenders (see also Jensen 1999). Prey abundance may also decline as a result of increased siltation.
Siltation can also impede the movement of individuals and Routman (1993) speculates that colonization
of new habitat will only occur when rivers have low silt loads. Erosion events associated with road
construction, timber harvesting and other development activities in riparian habitats may therefore
contribute to hellbender population declines by reducing the availability of potentially crucial
microhabitat conditions. Impoundment: Because hellbenders breathe primarily through the skin
(Guimond 1970) they are dependent on cool, well-oxygenated, flowing water. Construction of dams
stops swift water flow and submerges riffles; thereby reducing hellbender habitat and degrading the
suitability of the lotic environment through declines of dissolved oxygen concentration and increased
water temperature (Jensen 1999). Impoundments also act to fragment hellbender habitat, blocking the
flow of immigration and emigration between populations in addition to preventing recolonization from
source populations (Dodd 1997). Small, isolated populations are more susceptible to environmental
perturbation and demographic stochasticity, both of which may lead to local extinction (Lande 1988,
Wyman 1990). Water Quality: Nickerson et al. (2002) cites a study by Huckabee et al. (1975) which
implicated lowered pH levels and increased sulfate and metal concentrations as the likely contributor to
salamander elimination from streams in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Salamander kills
occurred downstream from road building projects (Huckabee et al. 1975). Dodd (1997) describes the
environmental effects of mining which destroys and alters habitat through toxic pollution, decreased pH
levels, and increased siltation. Both acid mine drainage (Humphries 1999) and streambed gravel mining
are considered possible threats to hellbender populations. Since hellbenders’ primary means of
respiration is cutaneous (Guimond 1970), introduced toxins are readily absorbed (Jensen 1999) and can
cause either direct mortality or interference with physiological processes, effectively reducing individual
fitness and recruitment."
The IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) (2004) states: “The principal threat to
this species is degradation of habitat, since it is a habitat specialist with little tolerance of environmental
change (Williams et al. 1981). It breathes primarily (approximately 90%) through the skin (Guimond
1970) and is therefore dependent on cool, well-oxygenated, flowing water. Construction of dams stops
swift water flow and submerges riffles. Logging, mining, road construction and maintenance, and other
activities, can cause extensive sedimentation that covers the loose rock and gravel important as nest
sites, and for shelter and food production. In Illinois, "most former rocky habitat has been buried under
silt" (Phillips, Brandon and Moll 1999). Chemical pollutants and acid mine drainage are probably
destructive, especially to eggs and larvae. Thermal pollution of water with a consequent oxygen loss
would also be detrimental. Several streams in Alabama "have been polluted, impounded, or otherwise
modified to the extent that they are, from all indications, incapable of supporting hellbender
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 271

 populations" (Mount 1975). Nickerson and Mays (1973b) noted additional factors they suspected might
affect local populations, such as gigging (hunting of the species at night), heavy canoe traffic,
dynamiting of large boulders to enhance commercial canoe traffic, and riverside cattle and pig pens.
Hellbenders generally are intolerant of heavy recreational use of habitat.” The IUCN lists the following
threats to hellbender habitat: residential and commercial development, tourism and recreation areas,
energy production and mining, quarrying, transportation and service corridors, roads and railroads,
logging and wood harvesting, recreational activities, dams and water management, pollution, domestic
and urban wastewater, industrial and military effluents, mine seepage, and agricultural and forestry
effluents.
Overutilization:
Overutilization is a known threat to the hellbender. Hellbenders are taken accidentally during fishing,
intentionally for fishing or for persecution, are collected for the pet and biological trades, and have been
overcollected by scientists as well. The viability of small populations of hellbender can be reduced by
removal of relatively few adults (NatureServe 2008). Furniss (2003) states, “Because the species is long
lived and does not reproduce until approximately age seven, the removal of even a few individuals from
a population that is experiencing declines can impact the recruitment potential of that population
(Rogers 2001).” Collection is especially harmful to populations that are already declining due to habitat
degradation. For example, in West Virginia, where the hellbender is threatened by mountaintop removal
coal mining, there is an organized effort by sport groups to eradicate hellbenders because they are
believed to be harmful to fish.
Many states list intentional take, persecution, fishing, and recreational use as threats to the hellbender,
including Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Virginia, and Tennessee
(Tennesssee Amphibian Monitoring Program 2004, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 2005,
Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2005, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation 2005, Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources 2006, Lipps 2010, Virginia Dept. of Game
and Inland Fisheries 2010).
Jensen and Humphries (2007) state, “Anglers who catch hellbenders while in pursuit of sport fish
sometimes kill them out of spite, fear, or the erroneous belief that they impact trout populations.
Ironically, trout anglers would reasonably be one of this species' best allies since stream impacts that
harm the hellbender typically also harm the trout fishery. The introduction of liquid bleach into streams
to collect bait salamanders ("spring lizards") is a technique that likely threatens all aquatic life in
localized areas, including hellbenders and their prey.”
The IUCN (2004) states: “Injuries and deaths sometimes also result when the salamanders are hooked
by anglers, and some fishermen still believe that hellbenders are dangerously poisonous and also destroy
game fish and their eggs (both beliefs are false), and therefore kill them at every opportunity. In the past,
there were even attempts by organized sportsmen’s groups in West Virginia to eradicate them. There is
some collecting of hellbenders for sale as live animals or as preserved specimens. Over-collecting has
been considered a serious threat in some parts; a decline was noted in the early 1990s, apparently due to
collecting.”
AmphibiaWeb (2010) states, "Man is an important predator, as a result of both commercial collecting
and scientific research. Swanson (1948) reported taking over 650 individuals from a 4.8-km stretch of
Big Sandy River, Pennsylvania. Peterson (1989) killed 108 hellbenders in the Niangua River, Missouri,
in 1974 and 62 from the Spring River, Arkansas, in 1985–'86 for a study of food habits. Ingersol et al.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 272

 (1991) killed 127 from the Niangua River in 1979–'80 to document their reproductive cycle. . . Trauth et
al. (1992a), documented a drastic decline in hellbenders along the Spring River of Arkansas. They
attributed the decline to over-collection of specimens for scientific purposes, habitat loss, and other
factors . . . In 1992, a gentleman from Alabama confessed to illegally collecting 100 or more hellbenders
from the North Fork of the White River in the mid 1980’s to sell to the pet trade. Also, hellbenders are
susceptible to anglers, gigging for suckers. Over the years, gigged hellbenders have been found
throughout the range of hellbenders in Missouri (Briggler pers. com.).”
Mayasich et al. (2003) state: “The illegal pet trade is a likely threat to eastern hellbenders. Nickerson
and Mays (1973) quote live hellbenders as selling for $15 to $35 dollars each in 1972. Although
collection for commercial sale is illegal in several states (e.g., Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, New
York, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia), once removed, hellbenders can be legally sold to pet
wholesalers in states where restrictions have not been enacted. In 2001 an advertisement in a Buffalo,
New York newspaper was selling hellbenders for $50 each (A. Bresich, pers. comm.). Jeff Briggler
(pers. comm.) provided an anecdotal report that a single group collected over 100 Ozark hellbender
individuals during the 1980s in Missouri and that as recent as the 1990s, hellbenders were still being
collected in Arkansas. Traugh et al. (1992) suggested that removal of specimens for “scientific or other
purposes” in addition to habitat degradation has contributed to the decline of the Ozark hellbender in
Arkansas. There is some indication that extensive scientifically motivated collections may have
negatively impacted hellbender populations. Mike Pinder (VA Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries, pers.
comm.) described hellbender removal by a university teacher for sale to biological supply companies.
Gates et al. (1985) suggest that recreational fishing may have a negative impact on hellbender
populations due to an unfounded animosity towards hellbenders which are thought to be poisonous
and/or to interfere with fisheries production. The extent and impact of this threat is difficult to gauge.”
The Nature Conservancy (2010) states, “As a large but apprehensive amphibian, the adult hellbender's
main threat is man. An angler using live bait may accidentally hook one or may unknowingly destroy
their nests while trudging along the riverbed. Then there are those who search to capture the hellbender
to keep them as pets or sell them to pet stores.”
Disease or predation:
Hellbenders are increasingly threatened by both disease and predation. NatureServe (2008) states:
“Some recent studies found open sores, tumors, and missing limbs and eyes in hellbenders in the Spring
and Eleven Point rivers in the Ozark region (see Wheeler et al. 2002, Trauth et al. 2004). The cause of
the abnormalities is unknown. AmphibiaWeb (2010) reports that captive hellbenders are often infected
by water mold (Saprolegnia sp.) (AmphibiaWeb 2010). Briggler et al. (2007) report that chytrid fungus
now threatens wild hellbender populations, stating: “Both eastern (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
alleganiensis) and Ozark hellbenders (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi) have experienced marked
population decline with an average of 77% since the 1970s. Data reveal a shift in age structure of
hellbender populations, with larger, mature individuals being most prevalent and young age classes
being virtually absent . . .One emerging threat that has received increased attention in the past few years
is the prevalence of amphibian chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd). In March 2006,
captive-reared hellbenders, which were raised from eggs collected from two rivers in Missouri in 2002,
tested positive for Bd. Tests for Bd on hellbenders in the wild began and immediately yielded positive
confirmation of Bd on hellbenders. With this new discovery, additional information has been collected
over the past two field seasons to document the frequency and distribution of this fungus on hellbenders
in Missouri. This fungus was found on hellbenders in five of the eight rivers surveyed in 2006 and 2007.
Positive Bd results were found in three Ozark hellbender rivers and two eastern hellbender rivers with
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 273

 the majority of the infected animals occurring in Ozark hellbender rivers. Positive animals tended to be
isolated to a few locations on each river, and frequency of infection was between 2% and 25% of
hellbenders tested. Infected animals’ total length ranged from 26.5 cm to 51.5 cm with longer
hellbenders having higher average infection rates.”
Hellbenders may be particularly vulnerable to disease because they exhibit low genetic diversity and are
distributed as small, isolated populations (Furniss 2003). Concerning the threat of disease to hellbenders,
Furniss (2003) states: “The majority of hellbenders captured in the past few years have an alarming
number of abnormalities; mainly the absence of toes with exposed flesh (Trauth pers. com.). Although
the causes of these abnormalities are unknown, some type of disease might be involved.” Mayasich et al.
(2003) state: “Nickerson and Mays (1973) describe various fungi, protozoans, nematodes, trematodes,
cestodes, acanthocephalans, and annelids (leaches) as hellbender parasites. Krecker (1916) reported the
worm Filaria cingula to be a skin parasite of C. alleganiensis. These factors can adversely affect
individual eastern hellbenders although relative to the threatening factors associated with habitat
degradation, it is doubtful that they have negatively impacted populations of eastern hellbenders,
significantly. However, the cumulative effects of multiple environmental and biological stressors may
increase hellbender mortality rates. For example, Kiesecker et al. (2001) describe how climate-induced
changes in UV-B exposure increase susceptibility to pathogen outbreaks in western United States
amphibian populations" (Mayasich et al. 2003).”
Hellbenders are also threatened by predation, especially in conjunction with other threats including
habitat loss, collection, and disease. Furniss (2003) states: “Within their natural range, most aquatic
plants and animals are kept in check by the powerful forces of competition, predation, and disease. If
moved to new regions, however, these aquatic species may be freed from their normal biological and
physical constraints, and spread unfettered. They displace native aquatic plants and animals, disrupt
ecological processes, upset the stability of ecosystems, and can permanently change our natural
landscapes. In the past decade, numerous publications have indicated the negative impacts that nonnative trout have on native species with the majority of the work focusing on amphibian assemblages in
mountain lakes Conservation Assessment for Ozark hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi)
(Bradford 1989, Bradford et al. 1993, Brana 1996, Frank and Dunlap 1999, Knapp and Mathews 2000).
Although there has not been any direct evident of the effects of trout on hellbenders; other species of
salamanders have been impacted by trout (Tyler et al. 1998a and 1998b, Rundio and Olson 2003).
Salamanders have developed the ability to respond (fright response) to chemical cues of known
predators. Recent evidence by Unger (2003) indicates that hellbender larvae from Missouri do not show
a fright response to chemical cues by trout. Thus, indicating that larvae hellbenders would not adjust
their behavior to trout and therefore, trout could decrease the survival of hellbender larvae. Since trout
and hellbender habitats overlap in Missouri and Arkansas, further investigation is warranted.”
Mayasich et al. (2003) state: “Nickerson and Mays (1973) contains thorough accounts of hellbender
predators and parasites. They identify northern pike and muskellunge, turtles and water snakes, and
humans as hellbender predators. Over one third of the state agencies contacted, speculated that
introduced game fish may have detrimental effects on hellbender populations.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that several occurrences of hellbender are somewhat protected because they
occur on public lands, but that these habitats may still be negatively impacted by water pollution
emanating from upstream portions of the watershed. Occurrence on public lands also does not prevent
the hellbender from being negatively affected by logging projects or other actions, for example,
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 274

 hellbenders in Great Smoky Mountains National Park have been negatively affected by agency actions
(Nickerson et al. 2002).
The hellbender is listed by several states, but these listings provide protection only from collection, not
from habitat destruction. Although collection for commercial sale is illegal in several states (e.g.,
Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia), once removed,
hellbenders can be legally sold to pet wholesalers in states where restrictions have not been enacted.
Further, even in areas where hellbenders are collected, enforcement is inadequate to protect the species.
AmphibiaWeb (2010) states: "Hellbenders are classified as Endangered in Illinois, Indiana, Maryland,
and Ohio; Rare in Georgia; Of Special Concern or Species of Concern in New York, North Carolina,
and Virginia; Watch List in Missouri; and Deemed in Need of Management in Tennessee. The actual
degree of protection each of these designations afford varies by state, but generally, Endangered status
requires that a permit be secured before a hellbender can be captured and provides penalties for
possessing hellbenders without such a permit. The other categories listed above do not afford this level
of protection, but do allow for some acknowledgment that the future of the species within their
boundaries is not totally secure. Other states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, South
Carolina, and West Virginia track hellbender distribution records in a database, but do not generally
afford them protection from take. Pennsylvania apparently neither tracks hellbender records nor protects
them from take."
Mayasich et al. (2003) report that existing regulatory mechanisms that could protect the hellbender are
not being implemented and enforced, stating: “Existing regulatory mechanisms merit some discussion
here because they are coupled with most of the anthropogenic activities that manifest themselves as
threats to the eastern hellbender. The Clean Water Act has provisions to address the water quality
requirements of the eastern hellbender and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
addresses land-use issues that affect eastern hellbender habitat. The provisions of the Federal Insecticide
Fungicide Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) minimize the risks associated with pesticide use. In and of
themselves, these regulatory mechanisms appear appropriately focused and sufficiently robust to prevent
or control the human activities that are potentially hazardous to eastern hellbenders. However, given the
threats to eastern hellbender populations presented above, implementation and enforcement of existing
regulatory mechanisms appears to be problematic. Proving that a direct “take” will occur because of a
specific land use activity is often difficult, but most certainly the cumulative effects of increased
development, logging, and mining has made survival more difficult for hellbenders (E.Thompson, pers.
comm.). Many states have afforded the eastern hellbender some level of protective status). However, the
extent to which overutilization is reported indicates that implementation and/or enforcement of these
protective measures is lacking."
Similarly, Furniss (2003) states: "The states of Arkansas and Missouri prohibit the taking of Ozark
hellbenders for any purpose without a state collecting permit. However, enforcement of this permit
requirement is difficult. Additionally, state regulations do not protect hellbenders from other threats.
Existing authorities available to protect riverine ecosystems, such as the Clean Water Act (CWA),
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
may not have been fully used to prevent instream activities and the resulting habitat degradation. This
may have contributed to the general habitat degradation apparent in riverine ecosystems and loss of
populations of aquatic species in the southeast. Although the Ozark hellbender coexists with other
federally listed species throughout parts of its range, listing under the Endangered Species Act would
provide additional protection, as the threats to hellbenders and the other endangered species are not
identical. Federal permits would be required to take the species, and federal agencies would be required
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 275

 to consult with the Service when activities they fund, authorize, or carry out may adversely affect Ozark
hellbenders (Rogers, 2001)."
Other factors:
The hellbender is threatened by several other factors. Many populations are now small and isolated,
making them vulnerable to stochastic genetic and environmental events. NatureServe (2008) states:
“Many populations have become reduced to the point at which the usual problems associated with small
population size come into effect. Fragmentation of populations as a result of habitat loss/degradation is
making it increasingly unlikely that extirpated populations can be reestablished through natural
dispersal.”
The Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources (2005) reports that hellbenders in the state are
threatened by stochastic events such as droughts, unusual weather, pine beetle damage, and flooding. An
exceptionally large flood event may have contributed to the decline in the Spring River, Arkansas
(Trauth et al. 1999). This species has also experienced unexplained declines in some areas (KY Dept. of
Fish and Wildlife Resources 2005).
Concerning other factors which threaten the species, Mayasich et al. (2003) state: “Among other
threatening factors, there is some indication that hellbender populations suffer from low genetic
variability, that recruitment is limited by endocrine disruption, and that adverse effects could result from
a complex of interactions associated with global climate change . . . Hellbenders display lower allozyme
variation than other salamanders, suggesting a reduction in genetic variation in their evolutionary history
(Merkle et al. 1977, Shaffer and Breden 1989, Routman 1993). Shaffer and Breden (1989) attributed this
low allozyme variation to the nontransforming nature of hellbender life history and suggest that nontransforming species which are generally restricted to aquatic habitats are subject to genetic bottlenecks
more often than more terrestrial, metamorphosing species. Routman (1993) found within-population
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to be less variable than variation in mtDNA between populations,
possibly as a result of a severe genetic bottleneck followed by rapid mtDNA evolution with gene flow
between rivers remaining lower than within a given river. Routman (1993) also hypothesized that high
silt loading may be an impediment to gene flow since it prevents migration and reduces the availability
of cover and breeding sites. This hypothesis is based on the logic that sedimentation and dissolved
oxygen are negatively correlated and that because sedimentation tends to increase in downstream
reaches of lotic systems, hellbender migration is impaired. These small, and increasingly isolated
hellbender populations may continue to suffer from decreasing within-population diversity as inbreeding
among close relatives, which can lead to problems such as reduced fertility and fitness, increases in
likelihood (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). Similarly, the random loss of adaptive genes through genetic
drift may function to limit the ability of hellbenders to respond to changes in their environment (Noss
and Cooperrider 1994). Small population sizes and inhibited gene flow between hellbender populations
may increase the likelihood of local extinction (Gilpin and Soulé 1986). As previously mentioned,
hellbenders are long-lived species capable of living up to 30 years (Nigrelli 1954, Taber et al. 1975,
Petranka 1998) with sexual maturity estimated at around 4-5 years (Smith 1907, Bishop 1941). Negative
aspects associated with delayed reproduction include the risk of death prior to reproduction and
lengthened generation times (Congdon et al. 1993). Hellbender specimens less than five years of age are
uncommon (Taber et al. 1975, Pfingsten 1990) and recent research has indicated that a shift in age
structure has resulted in the prevalence of older individuals (Pfingsten 1990, Wheeler et al. 2003). For
example, A. Bresich (pers. comm) reported that data complied by the Endangered Species Unit in the
state of New York include approximately 150 records of eastern hellbenders from 1883 to present.
Almost all of these were for mature adults and 20 reports include reference to eggs and three indicate
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 276

 that eggs were hatching into larvae. However, there are no reports of finding larvae in New York other
than when associated with hatching eggs (A. Bresich, pers. comm.). Likewise, R. Pfingsten (pers.
comm.) reported that larvae have not been detected in Ohio waters. He speculated that eastern
hellbenders may not be highly dependent on recruitment in order for a population to remain extant,
simply because of their longevity. However, empirical and theoretical evidence suggests that the amount
of generation overlap within a population (i.e., high survivorship among juveniles) is necessary to
maintain stable populations (Congdon et al. 1993, Ellner and Hairston 1994). Lack of sufficient
recruitment may be limiting population stability as well as the ability of hellbender populations to
maintain genetic diversity as alteration of habitat quality occurs within their range (Wheeler et al. 2003).
However, Pfingsten (1990) also cautions that lack of larvae detection could mean that they occupy an
unknown microhabitat that has yet to be surveyed. The disruption of endocrine system functions by
anthropogenic chemicals may play a role in the near absence of recruitment observed in hellbender
populations by causing developmental abnormalities in sexual organs (Colborn et al. 1993). For
example, Guillette et al. (1994) found permanent modification of American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis) gonads as a response to estrogen mimicking compounds released into aquatic habitat.
Guillette et al. (1994) suggest that these chemicals effectively alter sexual development and result in
declining reproductive success. Dr. Yue-Wern Huang at the University of Missouri-Rolla is currently
working to develop techniques for monitoring hellbender exposure to endocrine disruptors in Missouri
waters (see http://web.umr.edu/~huangy/research.htm for proposal abstract). Climate Change: Dodd
(1997) has thoroughly reviewed threats to amphibians of the southeastern states. In addition to
addressing the factors listed above, he presents discussions on other factors and activities that
conceivably could impact eastern hellbenders; e.g. climate change, low pH (water), and UV-B radiation.
Increasing air and water temperatures over the past 30 years are thought to have had serious influence on
declines of amphibian populations worldwide (Pounds 2001). Reliance on cool, well oxygenated streams
may inhibit the ability of eastern hellbenders to acclimate to higher water temperatures. Changing
precipitation patterns have resulted in reduced water depths which may have dried up critical hellbender
habitat or increased the amount of UVB radiation penetrating the water column. Kiesecker et al. (2001)
documented the connection between pathogen outbreaks in amphibian populations and climate-induced
changes in water depth and UV-B exposure. Kiesecker et al. (2001) acknowledge the complex
interactions between global climate trends and ecological responses at the local level to UV-B radiation.
However, caution must be used when assigning causal relationships between climate change and
amphibian declines since the pathways are not fully understood (Pounds 2001). Furthermore, the role of
locally mediated interactions with global climate fluctuations must be considered when attempting to
predict ecological responses such as population declines (e.g., Kiesecker et al. 2001)."
Similarly, Furniss (2003) states: “Certain population characteristics of Ozark hellbenders cause the
species to be fairly vulnerable to extirpations and extinction. The Ozark hellbender, having specialized
habitat requirements, is extremely vulnerable to environmental perturbations. When populations are
small, they are less likely to rebound following these perturbations. In addition, Ozark hellbenders
exhibit very low genetic diversity (Merkle et al. 1977, Wagner et al. 1999). This genetic uniformity is
consistent with habitat specialization (Nevo 1978, Wagner et al. 1999). Ozark hellbenders have adapted
to a relatively constant environment, and therefore several structural, behavioral, and physiological
specializations have resulted (Williams et al. 1981). These specializations, in combination with the
stable environment, seem to have resulted in very low levels of genetic diversity (Wagner et al. 1999).
This has been exacerbated with the fragmentation of populations by impoundments, habitat degradation,
and other impediments to dispersal. Without the level of interchange the hellbender experienced
historically, many small, isolated populations do not receive the influx of new genetic material that once
occurred. As the populations decrease in size, genetic diversity is lost and inbreeding can occur, which
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 277

 may result in decreased fitness, and the loss of genetic heterozygosity can result in a significantly
increased risk of extinction in localized natural populations (Saccheri et al. 1998). With fragmentation,
local extinctions cannot be repopulated (Rogers, 2001). Ozark hellbenders do not reproduce until
approximately 7 years of age. Declines being observed presently may be the result of activities that
occurred years earlier. Because juvenile hellbenders are rarely observed, it takes many years to detect
population trends. The lack of recruitment in most all Ozark hellbender populations is a significant sign
that little reproduction has occurred in these populations for several years. Delayed reproduction, when
paired with a long life span, can disguise declines until they become fairly severe (Rogers, 2001). The
present distribution and status of Ozark hellbender populations in the White and Black River systems in
Arkansas and Missouri may be demonstrating the characteristics mentioned above. Genetic studies have
demonstrated repeatedly very low genetic diversity in hellbender populations, which may be a factor in
the decline of the species. The current combination of population fragmentation and habitat degradation
may prohibit this species from recovering without the intervention of conservation measures designed to
facilitate hellbender recovery (Rogers 2001)."
References:
AmphibiaWeb. 2010. Information on amphibian biology and conservation. [web application].
2010. Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. Hellbender species account. Available:
http://amphibiaweb.org/. (Accessed: Apr 3, 2010).
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Hellbender
account. Accessed April 12, 2010 at:
http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/04a_amphibian.pdf
Barbour, R. W. 1971. Amphibians and reptiles of Kentucky. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington.
x + 334 pp.
Behler, J. L., and F. W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles
and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 719 pp.
Blackburn, L., P. Nanjappa, and M. J. Lannoo. 2001. An Atlas of the Distribution of U.S.
Amphibians. Copyright, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA.
Blackburn, S. Zoologist, West Virginia Nautural Heritage Program, Department of Natural
Resources Operations Center, Ward Road, P. O. Box 67, Elkins, WV 26241. 304-637-0245.
Personal communication.
Blais, D. P. 1996. Movement, home range, and other aspects of the biology of the eastern
hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis): a radio telemetric study.
Bothner, R. C., and J. A. Gottlieb. 1991. A study of the New York State populations of the
hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis. Proceedings of the Rochester Academy
of Science 17:41-54.
Brandon, R. A., and S. R. Ballard. 1994. Geographic distribution: Cryptobranchus alleganiensis.
Herpetological Review 25:31.
Briggler, J.T., M.D. Wanner, and C.D. Schuette. 2007. Hellbender declines and recovery actions
in Missouri, with emphasis on chytridiomycosis. In: Amphibian Declines and Chytridiomycosis:
Translating Science into Urgent Action. Tempe, Arizona. November 5-7, 2007. Accessed April

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 278

 12, 2010 at:
http://www.parcplace.org/documents/Bd_Program_post-FINAL.pdf
BURY, R. B., C. K. DODD JR., AND G. M. FELLERS. 1980. CONSERVATION OF THE
AMPHIBIA OF THE UNITED STATES. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RESOURCE
PUBL. 134. 34 PP.
Bury, R. B., C. K. Dodd, Jr., and G. M. Fellers. 1980. Conservation of the Amphibia of the
United States: a review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., Resource Publication
134. 34 pp.
Busby, W. Zoologist/Data Mgr. Kansas Natural History Inventory. Kansas Biological Survey.
2041 Constant Avenue. Lawrence, KS 66047-2906. 785-864-3453.
Coatney, Jr, C.E. 1982. Home range and nocturnal activity of the Ozark hellbender. Unpublished
Master's thesis. Southwest Missouri State University. Springfield, Missouri.
Collins, J. T. 1991. Viewpoint: a new taxonomic arrangement for some North American
amphibians and reptiles. SSAR Herpetol. Review 22:42-43.
Dundee, H.A. 1971. Cryptobranchus, and C. alleganiensis. Catalogue of American Amphibians
and Reptiles. 101:1-4.
Figg, D. E. 1993. Missouri Department of Conservation wildlife diversity report, July 1992-June
1993. 75 pp.
Firschein, I.L. 1951. The range of Cryptobranchus bishopi and remarks on the distribution of the
genus Cryptobranchus. American Midland Naturalist. 45:455-459.
Frost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference.
Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732
pp.
Frost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference.
Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732
pp.
Furniss, L.L. 2003. Conservation Assessment for Ozark hellbender (Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis bishopi Grobman). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region.
Gates, J. E. 1983. The distribution and status of the hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) in
Maryland: I. The distribution and status of Cryptobranchus alleganiensis in Maryland. II.
Movement patterns of translocated Cryptobranchus alleganiensis in a Maryland stream. Maryland
Wildlife Administration, Annapolis, Maryland.
Gates, J. E., R. H. Stouffer, Jr., J. R. Stauffer, Jr., and C. H. Hocutt. 1985. Dispersal patterns of
translocated Cryptobranchus alleganiensis in a Maryland stream. J. Herpetol. 19:436-438.
Georgia Museum of Natural History. 2008. Hellbender Species Description. Accessed April 12,
2010 at:
http://naturalhistory.uga.edu/~GMNH/gawildlife/index.php?page=speciespages/species_page&k

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 279

 ey=calleganiensis
Green, N. B., and T. K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and reptiles in West Virginia. University of
Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. xi + 241 pp.
Guimond, R.W. 1970. Aerial and aquatic respiration in four species of paedomorphic
salamander: Amphiuma means means, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, Necturus maculosus
maculosis, and Siren lacertina. Dissertation. University of Rhode Island.
Harding, J. H. 1997. Amphibians and reptiles of the Great Lakes region. University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor. xvi + 378 pp.
Hillis, R. E., and E. D. Bellis. 1971. Some aspects of the ecology of the hellbender,
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis, in a Pennsylvania stream. J. Herpetol. 5:121-126.
Hulse, A. C., C. J. McCoy, and E. Censky. 2001. Amphibians and reptiles of Pennsylvania and the
Northeast. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, Ithaca. 419 pp.
Humphries, W. J. 1999. Ecology and population demography of the hellbender, Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis, in West Virginia. Master's thesis. Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia.
Humphries, W. J., and T. K. Pauley. 2000. Seasonal changes in nocturnal activity of the
hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, in West Virginia. Journal of Herpetology 34:604-607.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2004. Hellbender account.
Accessed April 12, 2010 at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/59077/0/full
Jensen, J.B., and J.W. Humphries. 2007. Eastern hellbender species account. Accessed
April 12, 2010 at:
http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accounts/amph
ibians/cryptobranchus_alleganiensis_alleganiensis.pdf
Johnson, T. R. 1977. The amphibians of Missouri. Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist., Pub. Ed. Ser. 6.
ix + 134 pp.
Johnson, T. R. 1987. The amphibians and reptiles of Missouri. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Jefferson City. 368 pp.
Johnson, T. R. 2000. The amphibians and reptiles of Missouri. Second edition. Missouri
Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. 400 pp.
Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy. Accessed April 12, 2010 at:
http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/Volume%20II/Amphibia/Amphibia.htm#1036
Kern, W. H., Jr. 1986. The range of the hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis,
in Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 95:520-521.
Lipps, G. 2010. Ohio Amphibians, Eastern Hellbender Species Account. Accessed April 3, 2010
at: http://www.ohioamphibians.com/salamanders/Hellbender.html
Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and reptiles

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 280

 of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
264 pp.
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources. 2006. Endangered Animals of Maryland. Accessed April
12, 2010 at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/rtehellbender.asp
Mayasich, J., D. Grandmaison, and C. Phillips. 2003. Eastern Hellbender Status Assessment
Report. NRRI/TR-2003/09.
McCoy, C. J. 1982. Amphibians and reptiles in Pennsylvania. Carnegie Museum of Natural
History Special Publication No. 6.
Minton, S. A., Jr. 1972. Amphibians and reptiles of Indiana. Indiana Academy Science
Monographs 3. v + 346 pp.
Minton, S. A., Jr. 2001. Amphibians & reptiles of Indiana. Revised second edition. Indiana
Academy of Science, Indianapolis. xiv + 404 pp.
Mitchell, J. C. 1991. Amphibians and reptiles. Pages 411-76 in K. Terwilliger (coordinator).
Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. McDonald and Woodward
Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural
Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pp.
Nature Conservancy. 2010. Journey with Nature: Hellbender Salamanders. Accessed April 3,
2010 at: http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/indiana/misc/art21605.html
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy Appendix A4: Species Group Reports for Herpetofauna. Accessed April
3, 2010 at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/appendixa4.pdf
Nickerson, M. A., and C. E. Mays. 1973. A study of the Ozark hellbender, Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis bishopi. Ecology 54:1164-1165.
Nickerson, M.A. and C.E. Mays. 1973. The hellbenders: North American "Giant Salamanders."
Milwaukee Public Mus., Publ. Inbiol. and Geol. No. 1, 106 pp.
Nickerson, M.A., K.L. Kyrsko, and R.D. Owen. 2002. Ecological status of the hellbender
(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) and the mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus) salamanders in the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science
118(1): 27-34.
Noeske, T.A. and Nickerson, M.A. 1979. Diet activity rhythms in the hellbender, Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis (Caudata: Cryptobranchidae). Copeia. 1979:92-95.
Osborne, C. Data Mgr./Env. Review. Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. Suite 1500. Tower
Building. 323 Center Street. Little Rock, AR 72201. (501) 324-9150.
Peterson, C. L. 1987. Movement and catchability of the hellbender, Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis. Journal of Herpetology 21:197-204.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 281

 Peterson, C. L., and R. F. Wilkinson. 1996. Home range size of the hellbender
(CRYPTOBRANCHUS ALLEGANIENSIS) in Missouri. Herpetological Review 27:126-127.
Peterson, C. L., C. A. Ingersol, and R. F. Wilkinson. 1989. Winter breeding of Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis bishopi in Arkansas. Copeia 1989:1031-1035.
Peterson, C. L., D. E. Metter, and B. T. Miller. 1988. Demography of the hellbender
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis in the Ozarks. Am. Midl. Nat. 119:291-303.
Peterson, C. L., J. W. Reed, and R. F. Wilkinson. 1989. Seasonal food habits of Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis (Caudata: Cryptobranchidae). Southwest. Nat. 34:438-441.
Peterson, C. L., R. F. Wilkinson, Jr., M. S. Topping, and D. E. Metter. 1983. Age and growth of
the Ozark hellbender. Copeia 1983: 225-231.
Pfingsten, R. A. 1990. The status and distribution of the hellbender, Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis in Ohio. Herpetol. Rev. 21:48-50.
Pfingsten, R. A., and F. L. Downs, eds. 1989. Salamanders of Ohio. Bull. Ohio Biological Survey
7(2):xx + 315 pp.
Phillips, C. A., and W. J. Humphries. 2005. Cryptobranchus alleganiensis (Daudin, 1803).
Hellbender. Pages 648-651 in M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the conservation status of
United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Phillips, C. A., R. A. Brandon, and E. O. Moll. 1999. Field guide to amphibians and reptiles of
Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 8. xv + 282 pp.
Pough, F.H. and R.E. Wilson. 1976. Acid precipitation and reproductive success of Ambystoma
salamanders. Pp. 531-544. In Proceedings: First National Symposium on Acid Precipitation and
the Forest Ecosystem.
Redmond, W. H., and A. F. Scott. 1996. Atlas of amphibians in Tennessee. The Center for Field
Biology, Austin Peay State University, Miscellaneous Publication Number 12. v + 94 pp.
Routman, E. 1993. Mitochondrial DNA variation in Cryptobranchus alleganiensis , a salamander
with extremely low allozyme diversity. Copeia 1993:407-416.
Routman, E., R. Wu, and A. R. Templeton. 1994. Parsimony, molecular evolution, and
biogeography: the case of the North American giant salamander. Evolution 48:1799-1809.
Smith, D. W. 1961. The amphibians and reptiles of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey
Bulletin 28(1)1-298.
Smith, P. W. 1961. The amphibians and reptiles of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey 28:1298.
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. 2000. State Conservation Links and
Information. Accessed April 3, 2010 at: http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/stateconservation.php
Swanson, P. L. 1948. Notes on the amphibians of Venago County, Pennsylvania. American
Midland Naturalist 1948: 362-371.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 282

 Tennesssee Amphibian Monitoring Program. 2004. Salamanders of Tennessee.
http://www.tn.gov/twra/tamp/salamanders.htm
Tobey, F. J. 1985. Virginia's amphibians and reptiles: a distributional survey. Virginia
Herpetological Survey. vi + 114 pp.
Topping, M.S. and Ingersol, C.A. 1981. Fecundity in the hellbender, Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis. Copeia. 1981:873-876.
Trauth, S. E., H. W. Robison, and M. V. Plummer. 2004. The amphibians and reptiles of
Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press.
Trauth, S. E., J. D. Wilhide, and P. Daniel. 1992. Geographic distribution: Cryptobranchus
bishopi.. Herpetological Review 23:121.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2010. Wildlife Information Eastern
Hellbender. Accessed April 12, 2010 at:
http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hellbender/
Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2010. The Virginia Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
Appendix H — Threats to Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Accessed March 26, 2010 at:
http://www.bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-action-plan/appendix-h.pdf
Wheeler, B. A., E. Prosen, A. Mathis, and R. F. Wilkinson. 2003. Population declines of a longlived salamander: a 20+-year study of hellbenders, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis. Biological
Consevation 109:151-156.
Wheeler, B. A., M. L. McCallum, and S. E. Trauth. 2002. Abnormalities in the Ozark hellbender,
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 56:250-252.
Wiggs, R. L. 1977. Movement and homing in the hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, in
the Niangua River, Missouri. M.S. thesis, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield. 45
pp.
Williams, R. D., J. E. Gates, C. H. Hocutt and G. J. Taylore. 1981. The hellbender: a nongame
species in need of management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 9(2):94-100.
Williams, R.D., Gates, J.E., Hocutt, C.H. and Taylore, G.J. 1981. The hellbender: a nongame
species in need of management. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 9(2):94-100.
Ziehmer, B., and T. Johnson. 1992. Status of the Ozark hellbender in Missouri. Missouri
Department of Conservation, Natural History Division, Unpublished report, Jefferson City,
Missouri.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 283

 Scientific Name:
Crystallaria asprella
Common Name:
Crystal Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Historically the Crystal Darter was found in the Mississippi River basin, from Wisconsin (Becker
1983) and Minnesota east to Ohio (Trautman 1981) and West Virginia (Cincotta and Hoeft 1987,
Osier 2005) and south to southern Mississippi (Ross 2001), northern Louisiana, and southeastern
Oklahoma (Miller and Robison 2004), and the Gulf slope in the Escambia, Mobile Basin, and Pearl
River drainages (Page and Burr 1991, Ross 2001, Boschung and Mayden 2004). The species is now
absent from much of its former range, including almost all of the northeastern portion of the range in
Ohio (Trautman 1981), Indiana, Illinois (Smith 1979), Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993), and
Kentucky (Burr and Warren 1986), and it has apparently disappeared from much of the upper
Mississippi River basin. It is rare in Wisconsin (Becker 1983), Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri (Pflieger
1997) (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The crystal darter is found in clear to slightly turbid water of raceways and swift to moderately
swift riffles of small to medium rivers with expanses of clean sand or gravel. This fish is intolerant of
mud or clay substrates and avoids areas of submerged vegetation (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Pflieger
1997, Ross 2001, Boschung and Mayden 2004). It is usually found in water more than 60 centimeters
deep (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are now fewer than 100 extant occurrences of this once widely distributed fish. Total adult
population size is unknown but is presumably at least several thousand. The crystal darter is
common in only a few streams; it is localized and generally rare (Page and Burr 1991). In
Missouri, where it was never common, most records are represented by three or fewer specimens
(one collection of 11 specimens) (Pflieger 1997). Crystal darters appear to be rare in the Elk
River, West Virginia; Osier (2005) captured only two specimens during 20 sampling occasions
during 2002-2004.This species is not easily detected using standard fish survey methods
(NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species has declined in the short-term by up to 30 percent,
and in the long-term by up to 50 percent. It has been extirpated from 5 states in the northeastern
portion of the historical range. In Iowa, recent records are available from Turkey Creek and pools
9 and 11 of the Mississippi River. This species is declining in most areas (Mayden, pers. comm.,
1994; Burr, pers. comm., 1993; Douglas, pers. comm., 1993; Shute, pers. comm., 1993; Ross
2001, in NatureServe 2008). With continued habitat exploitation and degradation, the decline is
expected to continue (Mayden, pers. comm. 1994 in NatureServe 2008). In Alabama, the darter's
conservation status has deteriorated since the late 1970s, and the extent of suitable habitat
continues to decline (Boschung and Mayden 2004). Lyons (pers. comm., 1994) characterized
Wisconsin populations as rare but probably stable. Some populations in the southern portions of
the range may be stable (Stewart, pers. comm., 1993 in NatureServe 2008). Populations tend to

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 284

 fluctuate. A population may appear abundant in a locality for a time and then be essentially absent
(Shute, pers. comm., 1994 in NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The crystal darter is extirpated in Illinois and Indiana, critically imperiled in Florida, Iowa,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Wisconsin, imperiled in Arkansas and Louisiana, and vulnerable in
Alabama and Minnesota (NatureServe 2008). NatureServe’s ranking of this species as vulnerable
in Alabama is contradicted by Boschung and Mayden’s ranking of this fish as threatened in the
state. NatureServe ranks this species as vulnerable globally (G3) but this rank does not appear to
reflect the species actual status because it is discontinuously distributed, rare, declining, and
threatened by ongoing habitat loss and degradation. Concerning the conservation status of this
species, Boschung and Mayden (2004) state: “The crystal darter is considered a species of special
concern throughout its range; threatened in Florida, and extirpated in several states, having last
been seen in Illinois in 1901, Ohio in 1925, Kentucky in 1929, and Tennessee in 1939. It is no
longer abundant anywhere in Missouri. It was last collected in the Pascagoula River system in
1933, although what appears to be suitable habitat is still there. Discovery of crystal darters in the
Kanawha River in West Virginia offers hope for the survival of the species in the Ohio River
basin.” (However, in West Virginia this species is highly threatened by coal mining). Boschung
and Mayden continue, “The Mississippi River, however, is probably no longer an effective
dispersal pathway for the crystal darter because of its increased silt load. The populations
remaining in the Mobile Basin are isolated from one another by dams and silty impoundments.
Genetically the isolated populations of the crystal darter are highly divergent from one another
(Wood and Raley 2000). Every disjunct population examined by those authors is identified as an
independent evolutionary lineage and warranting protection. The Elk River population in West
Virginia is critically imperiled and is the most divergent lineage within the species. In Alabama,
suitable habitats for the crystal darter continue to dwindle. It is now essentially limited to the
main channel of the lower Cahaba, lower Tallapoosa, and Conecuh rivers. Despite its widespread
imperilment, the crystal darter has no federal status. Only time will tell whether the few
individuals in the Tombigbee and its major tributaries represent viable populations or stragglers
destined for extirpation. Because the crystal darter’s overall wellbeing in Alabama has worsened
since the late 1970s, we recommend threatened status” (p. 484, internal citations omitted).
Habitat destruction:
The crystal darter now occurs as declining, fragmented populations that are highly vulnerable to
extirpation from habitat loss and degradation.
Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss and degradation as the primary threat to the crystal darter.
NatureServe (2008) reports that this fish is threatened by “siltation and other forms of pollution
from urbanization, strip-mining, logging, natural gas exploration, and improper agricultural
practices, as well as stream alteration projects, such as damming, dredging, and channelization.
Dredging for navigation is believed to be a major threat in the upper Mississippi River system.
Waterway construction has destroyed and degraded habitat in some areas. Construction of the
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, which connected the Tennessee and Tombigbee drainages, was
followed by declines in crystal darter populations (Ross 2001, Boschung and Mayden 2004). . .
The Mississippi River probably no longer serves as an effective dispersal corridor due to its
increased silt load (Bauer and Clemmer, pers. comm., cited by Boschung and Mayden 2004). In
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 285

 the lower Cahaba River, Alabama, the species is threatened by increased siltation and
eutrophication perpetuated by upstream urbanization and strip mining (Boschung and Mayden
2004). Populations remaining in the Mobile Basin are isolated from one another by dams and silty
impoundments (Boschung and Mayden 2004). This fish requires swift moving currents and
therefore is susceptible to water flow modifications (dams, etc.). Altered flows due to
hydropower dams are a possible problem in the lower Chippewa and St. Croix rivers in Wisconsin
(Lyons, pers. comm., 1994 cited in NatureServe 2008). Crystal darters are relatively tolerant of
nondestructive intrusion, though heavy recreational use of habitat potentially could be excessively
disruptive.”
In the Appalachian region, the crystal darter is threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining
(EPA 2005). Mountaintop removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause significant
downstream pollution. Pollutants associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance in
aquatic biota (Palmer et al. 2010). Elevated selenium concentrations downstream of mountaintop
removal operations can cause teratogenic deformities in larval fish (Palmer et al. 2010).
Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates,
eliminating food sources for fish (Wood 2009). Boschung and Mayden (2004) state that the
discovery of crystal darters in the Kanawha River in West Virginia offers hope for the survival of
the species in the Ohio River basin, but these populations are directly threatened by mountaintop
removal. Wood and Raley (2000) found that the Elk River population in West Virginia is critically
imperiled and is the most divergent lineage within the species, making coal mining activity in
West Virginia a direct threat to the genetic diversity of this species.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (2005) reports that this species is threatened by
channel alteration and maintenance, dams, confined animal feeding operations, agriculture, and
grazing.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species or its habitat. NatureServe
(2008) reports that few (1-3) occurrences of this species are appropriately protected and
managed, stating: "At least one site is known to be protected, the lower Bayou Pierre complex in
Claiborne and Copiah counties, Mississippi. For the most part, the species is protected from
harvest, but generally there is no protection from upstream siltation or pollution sources.
Protection from erosion and point-source pollutants should encompass entire watersheds. Broad
riparian buffer strips, stiff enforcement of enhanced pesticide regulations, upland erosion control,
and modern pollution control systems may be needed to prevent habitat degradation in some areas.
Threats from dredging, toxic spills, and regulated flows from hydropower dams need to be
addressed. Beneficial management practices include those that limit and/or control activities such
as stream channelization, impoundment, removal of riparian vegetation, and careless agricultural
practices (Bauer and Clemmer 1983)."
Other factors:
The crystal darter is potentially threatened by the introduction of nonindigenous fish species
(Bauer and Clemmer 1983, NatureServe 2008). It is also vulnerable to stochastic genetic and
environmental events because of its distribution in localized populations (NatureServe 2008).
Across its range, this fish is threatened by water pollution from a variety of sources.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 286

 References:
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Aquatic Fish
Report Species Account. Accessed April 13, 2010:
http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/09a%20fish.pdf
Bauer, B. H. and G. H. Clemmer. 1983. A status report on the crystal darter, Ammocrypta
asprella (Jordan). Federal Aid Report to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 31pp.
Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1052 pp.
Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Cincotta, D. A., and M. E. Hoeft. 1987. Rediscovery of the crystal darter, Ammocrypta asprella,
in the Ohio River Basin. Brimleyana 13:133-136.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Miller, R. J., and H. W. Robison. 2004. Fishes of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman. 450 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Pflieger, W. L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri. Revised edition. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Jefferson City. vi + 372 pp.
Ross, S. T. (with W. M. Brennaman, W. T. Slack, M. T. O'Connell, and T. L. Peterson). 2001. The
inland fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi. xx + 624 pp.
Smith, P. W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana. 314 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 287

 Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.
Wood, R. M., and M. E. Raley. 2000. Cytochrome b sequence variation in the crystal darter
CRYSTALLARIA ASPRELLA (Actinopterygii: Percidae). Copeia 2000:20-26.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 288

 Scientific Name:
Cumberlandia monodonta
Common Name:
Spectaclecase
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The Spectacle Case Pearly Mussel historically occurred in a 5000-20,000 square km area in 45
streams in 15 states in the upper and lower Mississippi (Mulberry, Ouachita Rivers), lower
Missouri, Ohio, Cumberland, and Tennessee River Systems (Butler 2003, USFWS 2003,
NatureServe 2008). Currently this mussel is only found in riverine reaches downstream of Wilson
and Guntersville Dams (Mirarchi et al. 2004). The species is still extant in 20 stream systems in
10 states and 3 Service regions: Alabama (Tennessee River), Arkansas (Mulberry, Ouachita
Rivers- both single sites only; Harris et al., 1997), Illinois (Mississippi, Ohio Rivers), Iowa
(Mississippi River), Kentucky (Ohio, Green Rivers), Minnesota (Mississippi, St. Croix Rivers;
Rush Creek), Missouri (Mississippi, Meramec, Bourbeuse, Big, Gasconade, Big Piney Rivers;
Osage Fork), Tennessee (Tennessee, Clinch, Nolichucky, Duck Rivers; Caney Fork), Virginia
(Clinch River), West Virginia (Kanawha River), and Wisconsin (Mississippi, St. Croix, Chippewa
Rivers). Ahlstedt et al. (2004) recently reported sporadic occurrences (two recent) from the
lower Duck River in a reach less than 30 miles long with historical occurrences in the upper Duck
as well (NatureServe 2008). Though this species is widely distibuted, it is absent from many
historical locations and is now disjunctly distributed.
Habitat:
In comparison to other mussels, the Spectaclecase is a habitat specialist, occurring in large rivers
in microhabitats that are protected from the main current, often in outside river bends below
bluffs (Baird 2000). Substrates which support this species include gravel, cobble, sand, mud, and
boulders, but the species tends to be found in firm mud between large rocks (Stansbery 1967).
The mussel occurs in relatively shallow riffles and in shoals with currents ranging from slow to
swift, and may prefer quiet water near the current interface (Stansbery 1967, Buchanan 1980,
Parmalee and Bogan 1998, Baird 2000, NatureServe 2008). Most mussel species may move
around to some degree, but the Spectacle Case seldom moves except to burrow more deeply into
the substrate (Oesch 1995, NatureServe 2008). Stranding during drought conditions can lead to
death (Oesch 1995, NatureServe 2008). This mussel requires suitable water quality and
appropriate host fish for reproduction.
Ecology:
The Spectaclecase is a short-term brooder which is gravid in April and May. White feathery
conglutinates have been observed, but it is not known if they were host attractants or merely
aborted glochidial contents. Glochidial hosts have not been experimentally determined, but
glochidia have been observed on bigeye chub and shorthead redhorse. This mussel often occurs in
dense beds, with local densities of 120 per square meter having been reported (Mirarchi et al.
2004).
Populations:
The spectaclecase is known from 20 streams in 10 states (NatureServe 2008). This species is missing
from hundreds of river miles and from numerous reaches of historical habitat. Seven of the 20 extant
populations consist of only a single individual. In Arkansas where this species was thought to be
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 289

 extirpated, it is only known from two sites in the Ouachita River that consist of one individual each and
a lone site in the Mulberry River with one individual (Harris et al. 1997).
Relatively strong populations of this species survive in the Meramec and Gasconade Rivers in Missouri,
in the St. Croix River in Minnesota/Wisconsin, and possibly in the Upper Clinch River in Tennessee
(Butler 2003, USFWS 2003), but data from the Tennessee Valley Authority indicate a rapid decline in
the Upper Clinch (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The spectaclecase is very rapidly to rapidly declining in the short term and substantially declining
in the long term (50-75 percent). There has been documented rapid decline throughout its former
range, except in the Gasconade River, Missouri. In many streams this species has not been
reported for decades, and several populations are comprised of single individuals (Butler 2003).
In Illinois where it was formerly present in eight drainages, it is now restricted to the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers where it is sporadic and very rare (Cummings and Mayer 1997). The species is
absent from hundreds of river miles and from numerous reaches of habitat in which it occurred
historically (NatureServe 2008). This mussel's range has been drastically reduced (near 50
percent) and populations continue to decline with many remaining populations with poor or no
viability.
Status:
The Spectaclecase is presumed to be extirpated (SX) in Indiana, Kansas, and Ohio, and is critically
imperiled (S1) in Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West
Virginia. It is imperiled (S2) in Minnesota and Tennessee, and is vulnerable (S3) in Missouri
(NatureServe 2008). Many populations have been extirpated for decades, and most surviving
populations face significant threats (NatureServe 2008). It is a federal candidate species and
warrants full protection before populations decline to the point that recovery is impossible. It is
ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in
review).
Habitat destruction:
The spectaclecase has declined primarily due to habitat loss and degradation. The major causes of
habitat loss for this species are impoundments, channelization, mining, and sedimentation
(Williams et al. 1993, Neves 1993, Neves et al. 1997, Watters 2000). NatureServe (2008) states
even large, viable populations of this species face serious threats and that the Service should
“closely monitor and work to alleviate the immediacy of threats to these important spectaclecase
populations.” Mirarchi et al. (2004) report that this species has suffered extensive habitat loss and
fragmentation caused by impoundments of rivers and other human perturbations.
The Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources (2005) reports that this mussel is threatened
by dredging, gravel and sand quarrying, impoundments, stream channelization, coal mine drainage,
oil and gas operations, agriculture, silviculture, and urban runoff.
The spectaclecase is also specifically threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA
2005). Mountaintop removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause significant downstream and
groundwater pollution. Pollutants associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance
in aquatic biota (Palmer et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders
of aquatic macroinvertebrates, interfering with the food web (Wood 2009).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 290

 Overutilization:
NatureServe (2008) states that the spectaclecase is not a commercially valuable species, but may
be increasingly sought by collectors as it becomes more rare. Because many populations of this
species consist of only a single individual, even small amounts of collection could have
deleterious effects on the survival and genetic diversity of this species.
Disease or predation:
NatureServe (2008) states that little is known about the incidence of disease or predation for this
mussel, but that these factors could have greater impact on this species because it is particularly
long-lived (Butler 2003).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the spectaclecase, and there are no known
management programs for this species (NatureServe 2008).
NatureServe (2008) states that few to several (1-12) occurrences of this species are appropriately
protected.
In terms of land management, Nature Conservancy reserves protect two stream systems with extant
populations of the spectaclecase-- the upper Clinch/Powell River in Tennessee and Virginia, and the
upper Green River in Kentucky. Several waterways harboring this species are within or adjacent to
public lands. A small portion of the Clinch River watershed (e.g., several small tributaries) is located in
the Jefferson National Forest. The St. Croix River population of this mussel is within the St. Croix
National Scenic Riverway, Minnesota and Wisconsin (SCNSR). Several state-owned properties (e.g.,
Chengwatana, Governor Knowles, St. Croix State Forests; Minnesota Interstate, St. Croix, St. Croix
Wild River, William O'Brien, Wisconsin Interstate State Parks; St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area; Rock
Creek Wildlife Management Area) are adjacent to sections of the scenic river, which could potentially
provide some degree of water quality protection if managed appropriately. The Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge manages many islands and shoreline acres throughout a significant
portion of the upper Mississippi, with in-holdings extending from the mouth of the Chippewa River
downstream to Muscatine, Iowa. The Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge (MTNWR) has numerous
in-holdings between Muscatine and Keithsburgs, Illinois, and a disjunct portion, the Gardner Division, is
in the area of Canton and La Grange, Missouri. Sections of the lower Big Piney River and several
reaches of the upper Gasconade River are adjacent or inside the Mark Twain National Forest; the lower
Big Piney also flows through Ft. Leonard Wood Military Reservation. Several units of public land along
the Meramec River include Meramec, Pacific Palisades, and River Round Conservation Areas, and
Meramec, Onandaga Cave, and Robertsville State Parks (USFWS 2003 in NatureServe 2008).
In terms of management recommendations, NatureServe (2008) suggests that protection of the
populations in the Missouri Ozarks and the upper Clinch River should be a priority, given that the upper
Clinch is particularly vulnerable due to the rapidly declining numbers. Other recommendations include
assessing the feasibility of maintaining viable populations at other sites, and developing management
plans and cooperative agreements, including on the upper Mississippi River. NatureServe (2008) further
recommends close monitoring of point sources of pollution, upgrading effluent standards, monitoring
land use practices in the watershed to reduce siltation resulting from agriculture and construction
activities, and avoiding river modifications such as dredging and impoundment.
NatureServe (2008) lists the following recovery objectives: “1) Maintain high quality habitat, consisting
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 291

 of flowing water sites in medium-to-large rivers with good water quality (new national wildlife refuge
on Clinch River planned; modified reservoir releases from some dams to improve water quality by
Tennessee Valley Authority may allow for potential reintroduction). 2) Monitor and regulate land use
upstream to minimize erosion of silt to rivers. 3) Maintain ongoing conservation outreach program
focused on the St. Croix River and its mussel fauna (including The St. Croix River Research
Rendezvous group).”
Other factors:
Several other factors threaten the spectaclecase. Hypolimnetic releases from reservoirs negatively
impact mussel survival and reproduction, and are known to be adversely affecting seven spectaclecase
populations. NatureServe (2008) states, “Threats to some populations, such as those isolated and
downstream of persistent coldwater releases, clearly have placed them in jeopardy of extirpation (i.e.,
threats are imminent and the likelihood of survival and recovery are marginal).” Degraded water quality
from sedimentation and chemical contamination also threatens this mussel.
Population isolation and lack of recruitment is a dire threat for many populations. NatureServe (2008)
states, “Threats and risk of extirpation are clearly imminent for these eleven populations.”
Loss of fish host species could preclude reproduction for some spectaclecase populations (NatureServe
2008).
The spectaclecase is potentially threatened by invasive species such as the Asiatic clam, zebra mussel,
and black carp (NatureServe 2008).
Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that this species' restricted distribution, specialized habitat requirements, and
declining population make it vulnerable to localized extirpation.
References:
Ahlstedt, S.A. 1984. Twentieth century changes in the freshwater mussel fauna of the Clinch
River (Tennessee and Virginia). M.S. Thesis, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
102 pp.
Ahlstedt, S.A., J.R. Powell, R.S. Butler, M.T. Fagg, D.W. Hubbs, S.F. Novak, S.R. Palmer, and
P.D. Johnson. 2004. Historical and current examination of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in the Duck River basin of Tennessee. Final report submitted to the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, contract FA-02-14725-00, Tennessee. 212 pp.
Baird, M.S. 2000. Life history of the spectaclecase, Cumberlandia monodonta Say, 1829 (Bivalvia,
Unionoidea, Margaritiferidae). Unpublished master's thesis, Southwest Missouri State University,
Springfield, Missouri. 108 pp.
Buchanan, A.C. 1980. Mussels (naiades) of the Merrimac River Basin. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Aquatic Series, 17: 1-68.
Butler, R.S. 2003. Status assessment for the spectaclecase, Cumberlandia monodonta, occurring
in the Mississippi River and Great Lakes systems. Unpublished report prepared by the Ohio
River Valley Ecosystem Team Mollusk Subgroup, Asheville, North Carolina, March 2003. 69 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 292

 Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater
mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pages 129-145 in: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer,
and T.J. Naimo (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the
future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.
Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997.
Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in
Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 51: 66-89.
Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy. Mussel Species Accounts. Accessed April 2, 2010 at:
http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/Volume%20II/Bivalvia/Bivalvia.htm#1073
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state-of-the unionid address. Pages 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Koch (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels. Proceedings of a
UMRCC symposium, October 1992, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of aquatic
mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. Pages 43-85 in
G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Oesch, R.D. 1995. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Second edition.
Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri. viii + 271 pp.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
Stansbery, D. H., K. G. Borror, and K. E. Newman. 1982. Biological abstracts of selected species of
unionid mollusks recorded from Ohio. Prepared for the Ohio Heritage Program, Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio.Stansbery, D.H. 1967. Observations on the habitat distribution of
the naiad Cumberlandia monodonta (Say, 1829). American Malacogical Union Annual Report 1965(32):
16-17.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Ahlstedt, S.). 1984. Recovery plan for the Cumberland
monkeyface pearly mussel; Quadrula intermedia (Conrad, 1836). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 293

 Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. 35 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1985. Recovery plan for the pink mucket pearly
mussel; Lampsilis orbiculata (Hildreth, 1828). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4,
Atlanta, Georgia. 47 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Candidate and listing priority assignment form:
Cumberlandia monodonta. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Field Office. 23 pp.
Watters, G.T. 2000. Freshwater mussels and water quality: a review of the effects of hydrologic
and instream habitat alterations. Pages 261-274 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters,
B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings.
Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.
Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993.
Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries, 18(9): 622.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 294

 Scientific Name:
Cyprinella callitaenia
Common Name:
Bluestripe Shiner
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The bluestripe shiner is endemic to the main channels and lower reaches of major tributaries of
the Chattahoochee, Flint, and Apalachicola River Systems in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia
(Mayden 1989, Page and Burr 1991, Boschung and Mayden 2004, NatureServe 2008). The
bluestripe shiner has lost up to 90 percent of its range in the Chattahoochee River and is at very
reduced numbers in Uchee Creek (Shepard et al. 1995, SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat:
This fish is found in areas of flowing water with little or no aquatic vegetation in large alluvial
rivers with open, sand- or rock-bottomed channels. Eggs are deposited into crevices (Lee et al.
1980, Page and Burr 1991).
Populations:
Page and Burr (1991) describe it as localized and generally uncommon. A 1995 survey by
Shepard et al. (1995) in the Chattahoochee River system in Alabama found that although the
bluestripe shiner was encountered at a number of localities, most collections were small in
comparison to historical collections and that although the Uchee Creek system was historically
known to produce good collections of the shiner, 12 samples at six stations in the system failed
to produce any specimens in the survey. Marcinek (2003) documented that bluestripe shiners are
doing well on a 50 km reach of the Upper Flint River in Georgia.
Population Trends:
Boschung and Mayden (2004) report that this species is declining in Alabama. Freeman and
Dinkins (2009) report that recent sampling efforts in the Chattahoochee River system
documented the absence of the bluestripe shiner from these streams. Shepard et al. (1995)
concluded that the "overall abundance" of the blue shiner "has been reduced throughout its range in
Alabama." Since that time, the species has continued to decline, particularly in the
Chattahoochee (SFC and CBD 2010).
Status:
There are a small number of occurrences of this fish and its habitat has been significantly reduced.
It is ranked as critically imperiled in Alabama and as imperiled in Florida and Georgia
(NatureServe 2008). It is classified as vulnerable by the American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al.
2008) due to habitat loss and degradation. Although there was a recognition that bluestripe
shiners can still be found in decent numbers in the Upper Flint River of Georgia (Marcinek 2003),
at a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological Diversity, there was
agreement that this species should be listed as threatened based on sharp declines in the
Chattahoochee, which comprises a significant portion of the species range (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
The bluestripe shiner is threatened by habitat loss and degradation from impoundments, development,
forestry, agriculture, withdrawal of ground and surface water, and recreation. This species’ habitat in the
lower Chattahoochee has been reduced by impoundments; it was formerly present at shoals that are now

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 295

 innundated by fifteen large impoundments (NatureServe 2008). Marcinek et al. (2003) report that many
shoal habitats in the Piedmont of Georgia have been destroyed by reservoir construction, and that the
remaining shoals are still threatened. Freeman and Dinkins (2009) report that impoundment threatens
this species in the Chattahoochee and Flint River systems.
Urbanization and development are also major threats to this species due to direct habitat loss, water
diversion, and pollution from runoff (Holcomb 2005, Freeman and Dinkins 2009). Holcomb (2005)
reports that the amount of land development in Georgia increases on a daily basis, stating: “As a result
of the unprecedented growth in the region, the Upper Chattahoochee River system is under extreme
pressure from sprawl development, water supply reservoir proliferation, increased water withdrawal,
increased wastewater discharge and other threats associated with urban development as metro Atlanta
continues to move northward. This rapidly expanding human population growth combined with recent
technological advances have led to more persistent and ecologically devastating impacts on the
landscape, especially in the last 20 years (Noss and Peters 1995).” In the Chattahoochee Watershed,
Johnston and Maceina (2009) found a change in fish assemblages between 1965 and 2001 that included
a decline in the bluestripe shiner and appeared to correlate with changes in forest cover towards pine
plantations and a decline in water availabiltity.
The shiner is also threatened by habitat loss and degradation from agriculture and forestry (Freeman and
Dinkins 2009). The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources (GDNR 2009) reports that this species'
Southeastern Plains habitat is threatened by agriculture, withdrawal of ground and surface waters,
development, recreation, and dams. Agriculture and other ground-disturbing activities result in erosion
and degradation of water quality. Groundwater and surface water withdrawals for agriculture
substantially reduce stream flow, and agriculture contributes to nutrient and silt loading which stresses
aquatic organisms (GDNR 2009). Development increases sediment levels in streams (GDNR 2009).
Unmanaged recreation and ATV use destabilizes streambanks, increases sedimentation, pollutes water
with fuel, and crushes aquatic organisms outright (GDNR 2009). Dams and other structures which alter
stream flows on the Southeastern Plains cause significant problems for high priority species such as this
snail (GDNR 2009). The Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (2005) reports that this species’
large alluvial stream habitat is highly threatened by dam operations, water-control structures, and
channel modification.
Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss as a threat to this species.
An impending threat to the bluestripe shiner is a base realignement in Fort Benning that is predicted to
result in a substantial increase in human population with concurrent impacts to Uchee Creek (SFC and
CBD 2010).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this species. NatureServe (2008)
states that no managed areas adequately protect the riverine habitat occupied by this species. This
fish is listed as threatened by the state of Florida, but this designation does not confer substantial
protection to the species or its habitat.
Other factors:
Several other factors threaten the bluestripe shiner including pollution and invasive species.
Johnston and Hartfield (2009) report that the invasive red shiner, (Cyprinella lutrensis) is a highly
aggressive species which is spreading in bluestripe shiner habitat and which threatens the
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 296

 bluestripe shiner through hybridization. Freeman and Dinkins (2009) report that siltation from
forestry, agriculture, and development threaten this species because the shiner is dependent on
small crevices for egg deposition and increasing levels of sedimentation can preclude successful
spawning.
References:
Boschung, H.T. and R.L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Washington: Smithsonian Books.
736 pp.
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Large Alluvial
Stream. Accessed March 5, 2010 at:
http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Large_Alluvial_Stream.pdf
Freeman, B.J. and G. Dinkins. 2009. Georgia Wildlife Species Account. Accessed March 5,
2010 at:
http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accounts/fishe
s/cyprinella_callitaenia.pdf
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources. 2009. Southeastern Plains. Available at:
http://www1.gadnr.org/cwcs/PDF/12_SoutheasternPlains.pdf Last accessed Jan. 6, 2010.
Holcomb, D.B. 2005. Biodiversity in the Chattahoochee headwaters—rare fishes found in recent
study. Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 25-27, 2005,
at the University of Georgia. Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology, The University of
Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Johnston, C.E. and E.E. Hartfield. 2009. Status of nonindigenous red shiner (Cyprinella
lutrensis) in the Coosa River, Alabama. Southeastern Fishes Council Annual Meeting Abstracts
November 12 & 13, 2009 Guntersville, Alabama.
Johnston, C.E. and M.J. Maceina. 2009. Fish assemblage shifts and species decline in Alabama,
USA streams. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 18:33-40.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Marcinek, P.A. 2003. Variation of Fish Assemblages and Species Abundances in the Upper
River systems. Flint River Shoals, Georgia. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The
University of Georgia. Athens, Georgia.
Marcinek, P.A., M.C. Freeman, and B.J. Freeman. 2003. Distribution and abundance of three endemic
fishes in shoals of the upper Flint River system. Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources
Conference, held April 23-24, 2003, at the University of Georgia. Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of
Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 297

 Mayden, R. L. 1989. Phylogenetic studies of North American minnows, with emphasis on the genus
Cyprinella (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). Univ. Kansas Museum Natural History Miscellaneous
Publication (80):1-189.
Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor
House, Birmingham, Alabama. 820 pp.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
surface waters, development, recreation, and dams. Agriculture and other ground-disturbing Mexico.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Shepard, T.E., S.W. McGregor, M.F. Mettee, P.E. O'Neil. 1995. Status survey of the bluestripe
outright (GDNR 2009). Dams and other structures which alter stream flows on the Southeastern shiner
(Cyprinella callitaenia) in Alabama, 1994-1995. Geological Survey of Alabama.
Plains cause significant problems for high priority species such as this snail (GDNR 2009). The
Tuscaloosa, AL.
Wallace, R. K., Jr., and J. S. Ramsey. 1981. Reproductive behavior and biology of the bluestripe shiner
(Notropis callitaenia) in Uchee Creek, Alabama. American Midland Naturalist 106:197-200.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 298

 Scientific Name:
Cyprinella xaenura
Common Name:
Altamaha Shiner
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Vulnerable
Range:
The Altamaha shiner is limited to the Altamaha River drainage above the Fall Line in north-central
Georgia in both the Ocmulgee and Oconee systems (NatureServe 2008). Freeman et al. (2009)
report:
"Historically, this species has been recorded from 25 different HUC 10 watersheds within its
range. Between 1998 and 2009, this species has been documented within 18 of these watersheds."
Habitat:
This fish occurs in pool habitats in small to moderate-sized streams that are cold and clear (Lee et
al. 1980, Page and Burr 1991).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) states there are fewer than 20 populations based on Lee et al. (1980), who
mapped 19 collection sites. In recent surveys, the species was found in 18 of 25 HUC 10
watersheds within its range. Where the species remains, it can be abundant (B. Albanese personal
communication).
Population Trends:
Trend information is unavailable for this species, but much of its habitat has been urbanized and it
is in the path for future urban sprawl (NatureServe 2008). In some cases, it has persisted in urban
watersheds (B. Albanese personal communication), although the long-term viability of these
populations is uncertain. It also has bben lost from a large number of watersheds within its range
(Freeman et al. 2009).
Status:
This fish has a small range in streams of the Altamaha River drainage, Georgia, where NatureServe
(2008) considers it to be imperiled. Jelks et al. (2008) list this fish as vulnerable due to habitat
loss and narrow range. The state of Georgia lists it as threatened (Freeman et al. 2009).
Habitat destruction:
Jelks et al. (2008) list this species as vulnerable due to the present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of habitat range and a narrow range. Georgia DNR (1999) note
principle threats from "degradation and impoundment of tributary streams in the upper Altamaha
drainage" resulting from "construction sites and bridge crossings, and increased stormwater runoff
from developing urban and industrial areas." They further note that the "range of the Altamaha
shiner includes the rapidly developing Piedmont physiographic province where many streams have
become damaged by urban development to the point that they support only a very few hardy,
tolerant fishes (Georgia DNR 1999).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 299

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) states that it is unknown whether any element occurences are protected, but
that such protection is necessary given the small number of locations of the species. The Shiner is
listed as a threatened species by the state of Georgia. Although this designation prohibits direct
harm to the fish, it does not provide any protection for habitat. Given that habitat loss and
degradation is the greatest threat to the shiner, this is a critical omission.
Other factors:
Jelks et al. (2008) list this species as vulnerable because of a narrowly restricted range. Georgia
DNR (1999) notes that "the invasive red shiner, if it spreads throughout the Altamaha system,
could be a very significant threat to the Altamaha shiner through hybridization and competitive
displacement effects." The Altamaha shiner is also threatened by pollution (Georgia DNR 1999).
References:
Freeman B., B. Albanese, and K. Owers. 2009. Species account for Altamaha shiner. Protected
Animals of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Available at
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage=15
and accessed April 6, 2009.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Mayden, R. L. 1989. Phylogenetic studies of North American minnows, with emphasis on the
genus Cyprinella (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). Univ. Kansas Museum Natural History
Miscellaneous Publication (80):1-189.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott.
1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American
Fisheries Society, Special Publishing 20. 183 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 300

 Scientific Name:
Cyprogenia aberti
Common Name:
Western Fanshell
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
The Western Fanshell occurs in Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri, and historically in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Oklahoma (NatureServe 2008). In the Ozark and Ouachita mountain ranges, this
mussel was known historically from the Little Missouri, Saline, Caddo and Ouachita Rivers in the
Red River drainage, from the Spring, Elk, Fall, Caney, Neosho, Verdigris and Shoal Rivers in the
Arkansas River drainage, from the Little Black, Black, Buffalo, Current, Spring, Strawberry, and
White Rivers, and from Cane and Castor Creeks in the White River drainage, and from the St.
Francis River (NatureServe 2008). There are historical reports from the Big Sunflower and Yazoo
Rivers in Mississippi, but no extant occurrences in the state (Jones et al. 2005). Serb (2003,
2006) suggests that C. aberti may actually comprise several species.
Habitat:
This mussel uses rock, gravel, and soft mud substrates in flowing water in medium-sized rivers
(NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are 20 total known extant occurrences for this once widespread species-- nine in Arkansas,
seven in Missouri, and four in Kansas. In Arkansas, it occurs in the White, Black, Spring,
Ouachita, Saline, Little Missouri, Buffalo, and Strawberry rivers (Gordon 1982, Harris and
Gordon 1987, Christian 1995, Harris et al. 1997, Davidson and Gosse 2003). In Missouri, it
occurs in the St. Francis, Black, and Spring rivers (Oesch 1995). Ahlstedt and Jenkinson (1991)
report that it is extremely rare in the St. Francis River system in Missouri. Obermeyer et al.
(1997) reports this species from the Spring, Verdigris, and Fall Rivers, and reports historical
occurrences in the Neosho, Elk, and Caney Forks, where it is now extirpated. In Kansas, in the
Marais des Cygnes, Elk, and Fall Rivers, only dead shells have been recently reported (Combes
and Edds 2005). It is considered to be extirpated in the Spring and Neosho Rivers in Kansas
(Couch 1997). It is also extirpated in the Oklahoma portion of the Verdigris and Spring rivers
(Vaughn 1998), and from Castor and Cane Creeks in Missouri (Oesch 1995). The population in
the Little Black River is not considered to be viable, although some adults still exist in a Missouri
reach (Bruenderman, pers. comm. cited in NatureServe 2008 ). This mussel is rare throughout the
majority its range, comprising less than 0.1 percent of a local mussel assemblage (B. Obermeyer,
pers. comm. cited in NatureServe 2008, Obermeyer et al. 1997), but is locally abundant in
several rivers in Arkansas where it typically makes up two to five percent of a mussel bed, and in
some parts of the Black River and Spring River it comprises 5-10 percent of the assemblage (J.
Harris, pers. comm. cited in NatureServe 2008, Christian 1995, Davidson 1997, Posey 1997,
Harris et al. 1997).
Population Trends:
This mussel has declined from 25-50 percent in the long-term, and is rapidly declining in the
short-term, from 30-50 percent (NatureServe 2008). It has been extirpated from much of its
range, including all of Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Louisiana (Mather 1990, Vidrine 1993, Jones

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 301

 et al. 2005). It no longer occurs in the Caney, Elk and Neosho rivers (Obermeyer et al. 1997,
Vaughn 1998). It is extirpated from the Oklahoma portion of the Verdigris and Spring rivers
(Vaughn 1998), and from Castor and Cane Creeks un Missouri (Oesch 1995). The population in
Status:
This mussel is critically imperiled in Kansas, imperiled in Arkansas and Missouri, and state
historical (SH) in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma (NatureServe 2008). It is ranked as
endangered by the IUCN. NatureServe (2008) states, "The species is a regional endemic that has
experienced significant declines in the last 30 years, particularly in the last 10 years, has been
extirpated from a large portion of its range, and is quite rare throughout most of its remaining
range." It is ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010
draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
This species has already been extirpated from most of its former range due to habitat loss and
degradation. NatureServe (2008) reports that most remaining populations of this species are
threatened by habitat degradation or destruction. It is threatened by existing and planned
impoundments and channelization, gravel mining, and agricultural runoff including siltation and
eutrophication (Obermeyer 2000, NatureServe 2008). The Missouri Dept. of Conservation
(2010) reports that the Spring River population of this species is threatened by poor water quality
downstream from the confluence of Turkey and Center creeks and by channelization, gravel
dredging, strip-mine runoff, feedlot runoff, isolation of downstream populations due to dams, and
isolation from host fishes. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (2005) reports that this
mussel is threatened by habitat destruction due to dams, grazing, resource extraction, nutrient
loading, confined animal feeding operations, sedimentation, forestry, and road construction. Roe
(2004) reports threats to this species as gravel mining, silation, pollution, and impoundments.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that confer substantial protection to this species.
Miller (1993) reports an occurrence of this mussel on the Verdigris River Freshwater Mussel
Refuge in Kansas.
Other factors:
The zebra mussel now occurs in the Arkansas River drainage and thus potentially threatens this
species (NatureServe 2008). Roe (2004) reports invasive species as a threat to this mussel.
References:
Ahlstedt, S.A. and J.J. Jenkinson. 1991. Distribution and abundance of Potamilus capax and other
freshwater mussels in the St. Francis River system, Arkansas and Missouri, U.S.A. Walkerana,
5(14): 225-261.
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan, Species Account.
Accessed Feb. 8, 2005 at: http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/14a_mussel.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 302

 the Little Black River is no longer viable (NatureServe 2008). In Arkansas, this mussel has Christian,
A.D. 1995. Analysis of the commercial mussel beds in the Cache and White Rivers in
experienced declines, but to a lesser degree and several populations are still locally abundant Arkansas.
M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 210 pp.
(Harris et al. 1997).
Combes, M. and D. Edds. 2005. Mussel assemblages upstream from three Kansas reservoirs.
Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 20(1): 139-148.
Couch, K.J. 1997. An Illustrated Guide to the Unionid Mussels of Kansas. Karen J. Couch.
[Printed in Olathe, Kansas]. 124 pp.
Davidson, C.L. 1997. Analysis of mussel beds in the Little Missouri and Saline Rivers, Blue
Mountain, Ozark and Dardanelle Lakes, Arkansas. M.S. thesis, Arkansas State University.
Davidson, C.L. and D. Gosse. 2003. Status and distribution of freshwater mussels (Unionacea)
inhabiting the Saline River/ Holly Creek bottoms area, Saline County, Arkansas. Journal of the
Arkansas Academy of Science, 57: 187-192.
Gordon, M.E. 1982. Mollusca of the White River, Arkansas and Missouri. The Southwestern
Naturalist, 27(3): 347-352.
Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1987. Distribution and status of rare and endangered mussels
(Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of
Science, 41: 49-56.
Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997.
Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in
Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 51: 66-89.
Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia:
Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.
Missouri Dept. of Conservation. 2010. Spring River Watershed: Biotic Communities. Accessed
Feb. 8, 2010 at: http://mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/spring/biotic/
Obermeyer, B.K. 1999. Recovery plan for four freshwater mussels in southeast Kansas: neosho
mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana), ouachita kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus occidentalis),
rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica), and western fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti). Report submitted to
the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks, Pratt, Kansas. 83 pp.
Obermeyer, B.K., D.W. Edds, C.W. Prophet and E.J. Miller, 1997. Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in the Verdigris, Neosho and Spring river basins of Kansas and Missouri, with
emphasis on species of special concern. American Malacological Bulletin, 14: 41-55.
Oesch, R.D. 1995. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Second edition.
Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri. viii + 271 pp.
Posey II, W.R. 1997. Location, species composition and community estimates for mussel beds
in the St. Francis and Ouachita Rivers, Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 178 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 303

 Roe, K.J. 2004. Conservation Assessment for Western Fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti). USDA
Forest Service, Eastern Region. Accessed Feb. 8, 2010 at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/ca-overview/docs/fanshell.pdf
Serb, J.M. 2003. Mitochondrial gene arrangement and the evolution, systematics, and
conservation of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of North America. Ph.D. dissertation.
University of Alabama.
Serb, J.M. 2006. Discovery of genetically distinct sympatric lineages in the freshwater mussel
Cyprogenia aberti (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 72: 425-434.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Status review of the western fanshell,
Cyprogenia aberti. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 3 pp.
Vaughn, C.C. 1998. Distribution and habitat preference of the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma.
Report to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 304

 Scientific Name:
Deirochelys reticularia miaria
Common Name:
Western Chicken Turtle
G Rank:
T5
Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this subspecies occurs in Arkansas, Missouri, and Mississippi,
but that distribution data is known to be incomplete or has not been reviewed for this taxon.
Conant and Collins (1998) report that this subspecies occurs in Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Texas, and Oklahoma.
Habitat:
The chicken turtle inhabits still water ponds, marshes, sloughes, and ditches (Conant and Collins
1998).
Populations:
Population information is unavailable for this subspecies.
Population Trends:
Population trend has not been reviewed for this subspecies. Buhlmann and Gibbons (1997) report
that it is declining in Arkansas. This subspecies was thought to be extirpated in Missouri but was
redetected in 1995 and is now considered Rare in the state (Buhlmann and Johnson 1995). Due to
recent collection pressure, this subspecies is thought to be in danger of extinction (Center for
Biological Diversity 2008). The Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. reports that populations in Texas
are stable but face many threats
(http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_w7000_1672.pdf).
Status:
The status of this subspecies has not been reviewed since 1996 and needs to be updated.
NatureServe (2008) ranks this turtle as critically imperiled in Missouri and vulnerable in Arkansas
and Mississippi. This species is not currently categorized by the IUCN, which states that its status
needs to be updated
(http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/deirochelys-reticularia-014/). It is state listed as Endangered in
Missouri (http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/145.pdf) and is a Mississippi Species of Greatest
Conservation Need (http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Appendix%208.pdf).
Habitat destruction:
The State of Texas reports that habitat loss threatens this subspecies in Texas, including loss of
foraging areas
(http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_w7000_1672.pdf). The State of
Missouri reports that due to habitat loss, this subspecies is now Endangered in Missouri
(http://mdc.mo.gov/nathis/herpetol/turtles/). In Missouri, the floodplain swamps in the Bootheel
region, where these turtles historically occurred have been almost completely destroyed for
agriculture (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997). The State of Arkansas reports that this subspecies is
threatened by habitat destruction due to crop production practices and wetland loss
(http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/16reptile.pdf). Buhlmann and Gibbons
(1997) report that this is turtle is declining in Arkansas due to loss of shallow weedy ponds and
swamps. The State of Mississippi reports that this turtle is threatened by loss of pond habitat due
to agricultural conversion, channel modification, dams and impoundments, and forestry
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 305

 (http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Type%2011.pdf).
Overutilization:
The State of Arkansas reports that commercial collection is a threat to this subspecies
(http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/16reptile.pdf). Reed and Gibbons (2003)
report that more than 240 chicken turtles were declared as exported from 1996-2000, at least 132
of which were wild-caught. This does not include the number of unreported and illegally harvested
turtles. This number is lower than numbers for other turtles, likely because Western Chicken
Turtles are already depleted. Population status of this subspecies is currently unknown, and
collection pressure has increased tremendously in recent years (Center for Biological Diversity
2008). Buhlmann and Gibbons (1997) state that even presently abundant southeastern turtle
species are threatened by collection because of the vast numbers of freshwater turtles being
removed from the wild and shipped to other countries. Studies have shown that the removal of
long-lived, slow-growing animals with life history traits designed for replacement reproduction
spread out over the course of a lifetime results in population decline (Congdon et al. 1993, 1994).
The elimination of individuals from populations that are already threatened because of habitat
degradation is an additive impact on already stressed populations. Western Chicken Turtles are
illegally traded over the internet, such as in this advertisement which was accessed in the classified
ads on Kingsnake.com on Jan. 27, 2010: "LARGE ADULT FEMALE CHICKEN TURTLE,
APPROXIMATELY 9 1/2 INCHES IN LENGTH, DEFINITE FEMALE, SUPER FAT AND
HEALTHY, SURE TO BE A GREAT BREEDER OR ADDITION TO ANY POND, RAVENOUS
FEEDER, $250 EMAIL OR CALL (954)428-8005. BE SURE TO CHECK US OUT ONLINE AT
WWW.UNDERGROUNDREPTILES.COM!"
(http://market.kingsnake.com/detail.php?cat=39&de=746851).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect this subspecies. It is state
listed as Endangered in Missouri, but this designation provides no substantial regulatory
protection. It lacks any legal protection throughout the remainder of its range.
Other factors:
The State of Texas reports that this subspecies is threatened by road mortality
(http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_w7000_1672.pdf). Buhlmann
and Gibbons (1997) report that road associated mortality is high for this subspecies.
References:
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2008. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Aquatic/Terrestrial
Reptile Report. http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/16reptile.pdf
Buhlmann, K. A., and T. R. Johnson. 1995. Geographic distribution: Deirochelys reticularia
miaria. Herpetological Review 26:209.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 306

 Buhlmann, K.A. and J.W. Gibbons. 1997. Imperiled aquatic reptiles of the Southeast. p. 201-231
In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern
Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and
Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Center for Biological Diversity. 2008. Unsustainable commerical harvest of southern freshwater
turtles.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/southern_and_midwestern_freshwater_turtles/pdf
s/SouthernFreshwaterTurtlesFS_March2008_red.pdf
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1998. Reptiles and Amphibians Eastern/Central North America. New
York: Houghton Mifflin. 616 pp.
Congdon J.D., A.E. Dunham, R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and
demographics of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): Implications for conservation and
management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7: 826– 833.
Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1994. Demographics of common snapping
turtles: Implications for conservation and management of long-lived
organisms. American Zoologist 34:397-408.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2007. Tortoise and freshwater turtle
specialist group. http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/deirochelys-reticularia-014/
Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 2008. Mississippi Species of Greatest
Conservation Need. http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Appendix%208.pdf
Missouri Conservation Department. 2010. Missouri Species and Communities of Conservation
Concern. http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/145.pdf
Reed, R.N. and J.W. Gibbons. 2003. Conservation status of live U.S. nonmarine turtles in
domestic and international trade. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at:
www.graptemys.com/turtle_trade.doc
Texas Parks and Wildlife. 2008. An introduction to Texas turtles.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_w7000_1672.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 307

 Scientific Name:
Desmognathus abditus
Common Name:
Cumberland Dusky Salamander
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The Cumberland Dusky Salamander occurs in a small area on the Cumberland Plateau in
Tennessee. The northern boundary of its range is just south of the Cumberland Mountains section
of the Plateau near Wartburg, Morgan County, Tennessee. The southern and western boundary is
near Tracy City in Grundy County. In a narrow zone on Walden Ridge, D. abditus appears to be
parapatric or to have hybridized with D. ocoee (Anderson and Tilley 2003, NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The Cumberland Dusky Salamander occurs near streams on a forested plateau. Individuals are
generally encountered on land within a meter of water. This species is found under rocks, moss,
and debris, and on vertical rock faces behind cascades (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
The Cumberland Dusky Salamander likely preys on leaf litter invertebrates and is potentially
preyed upon by large sympatric Desmognathus, other salamander species, snakes, small mammals,
and possibly species of birds that forage in leaf litter (AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Populations:
This salamander is known from approximately 12 locations (Anderson and Tilley 2003).
Population size is unknown. Desmognathus abditus is apparently not abundant. Anderson and
Tilley (2003) obtained specimens with difficulty
(http://www.cumberlandhcp.org/files/natureserve/Amphibians_10.23.08/Cumberland_Dusky_Sala
mander_10.13.08.pdf).
Population Trends:
Population trend is unknown.
Status:
The Cumberland Dusky Salamander is imperiled in Tennessee. It is ranked as Near Threatened by
the IUCN. It lacks legal protective status.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that a major threat to the Cumberland Dusky Salamander is habitat loss and
degradation due to the building of second and retirement homes.
Gratwicke (2008) cites residential development, energy production and mining as threats to salamanders
in the Appalachians, including the Cumberland Dusky.
The State of Tennessee identifies habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation as the greatest threat to
salamanders in the state (http://www.state.tn.us/twra/tamp/salamanders.htm).
There has been widespread destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of imperiled amphibian habitats
in the Southeast (Vial and Saylor 1993, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994 in LaClaire 1997, p. 314). Dodd
(1997) states: “The integrity of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats is important to amphibian survival,
even among species that never venture beyond a single habitat type. Furthermore, the various life history
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 308

 stages (eggs, larvae, young, adults) may be differentially susceptible or sensitive to environmental
perturbations . . . Although vast areas have been cleared in the Southeast for agriculture, industry, and
urban use, there is virtually no assessment of the landscape effects of land conversion on amphibian
populations. It seems evident, however, that habitat changes (see papers in Hackney et al. 1992, Boyce
and Martin 1993), and with them changes in aquatic amphibian populations, have been enormous” (p.
177-8).
Habitat loss and degradation obviously negatively affects amphibian populations. LaClaire (1997) states:
“There is a growing body of work documenting (amphibian) population declines on sites where habitats
have been degraded or destroyed (Vickers et al. 1985, Enge and Marion 1986, Ash 1988, Dodd 1991,
Raymond and Hardy 1991, Petranka et al. 1993, Phelps and Lancia 1995, Means et al. 1996). . . Clearly,
when the habitat of a given population is destroyed, that population has gone or will shortly go extinct.
Many species may be unable to recolonize areas after local extinctions, especially when unsuitable
habitat exists between the extinct population and extant populations” (p. 325-326).
Habitat fragmentation can lead to amphibian population extirpation by disrupting metapopulation
dynamics and preventing dispersal and rescue between source and sink habitat. Dodd (1997) states:
“Land use patterns resulting in fragmentation can influence amphibian population genetic structure . . . if
populations become overly fragmented, emigration and immigration may be inhibited or stopped, thus
preventing recolonization from source populations. . . Small isolated populations are particularly
susceptible to environmental perturbations and to stochastic variation in demography that can lead to
extinction even without external perturbations. Isolation by habitat fragmentation thus becomes a threat
to the regional persistence of species” (p. 178).
Logging is detrimental for both aquatic and terrestrial amphibian habitat because it eliminates shade,
increases soil and water temperature, alters stream flow, increases sedimentation, reduces the input of
coarse woody debris and organic matter into streams, reduces forest floor litter (especially if litter is
piled and burned), reduces soil moisture, reduces and eliminates burrows and hiding places, and destroys
wetlands. Logging also frequently involves the use of herbicides which can be detrimental for
amphibians (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Logging is known to decrease
amphibian abundance and reproductive success (Dodd 1997, LaClaire 1997). LaClaire (1997) states:
“Habitat destruction and degradation resulting from timbering operations may create problems for longterm survival of imperiled amphibians (Kramer et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1993)” (p. 327).
Aquatic amphibian populations are threatened by habitat destruction and water pollution from coal
mining activities in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and by
phosphate mining in Florida (Wallace et al. 1992, LaClaire 2007). Dodd (1997) states: “In many
instances, mining occurs directly through small streams or ponds, and mine tailings are pushed into the
larger rivers. . . Mining not only destroys aquatic amphibian habitats outright, it also results in toxic
pollution, decreased pH, and siltation of streams and rivers” (p. 180). Gore (1983) showed that low pH
and high conductivity due to mining negatively affect the distribution of larval Desmognathus
salamanders in streams on the Cumberland Plateau (in Dodd 1997).
Road construction and repair and traffic degrade amphibian habitat. Roads can divide breeding locations
from overwintering sites and increase mortality for migrating adults and dispersing juveniles, and can
disrupt metapopulation dynamics and lead to population isolation, and light and noise from roads can
disrupt breeding and feeding behaviors (Dodd 1997). Dodd (1997) states: “Transportation corridors,
especially roads, can have serious deleterious effects on amphibian populations (Langton 1989). Road
construction can lead to habitat destruction in both terrestrial and aquatic environments, and can
negatively alter breeding habitats through increased siltation. Increased siltation can lead to increased
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 309

 amphibian mortality because of its own secondary effects. For example, nearly all aquatic life was
eliminated downstream after U.S. HWY 441 was rebuilt in 1963 in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park” (p. 180).
Overutilization:
The State of Tennessee identifies collection as a threat to the state's salamanders
(http://www.state.tn.us/twra/tamp/salamanders.htm). Amphibians are collected from the wild for
use as food, pets, and for the biological and medicinal supply markets (AmphibiaWeb 2009:
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/exploitation.html). Dodd (1997) states: “Collecting specimens
for the pet trade or biological laboratories probably has had some impact on local (Southeast)
amphibian populations, but few data are available” (p. 183).
Disease or predation:
The state of Tennessee identifies disease as a threat to the state's salamanders
(http://www.state.tn.us/twra/tamp/salamanders.htm). New diseases and increased susceptibility of
amphibians to existing diseases are known to be contributing to the decline of amphibian species
(Blaustein et al. 1994, Laurance et al. 1996, Berger et al. 1998, Daszak 2000, Kiesecker et al.
2001, see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/diseases.html). Stress from factors such as habitat loss
and fragmentation, chemical pollution, climate change, invasion of exotic species, increased UV-B
radiation, and natural population fluctuations may increase the susceptibility of amphibians to
disease (Carey 1993, Dodd 1997, Fellers et al. 2001, Kiesecker at al. 2001, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Pathogens known to cause infectious disease in amphibians include bacterial, fungal, viral,
metazoan, water mold, and trematode agents (Wright and Whitaker 2001 in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), has had severe impacts on
amphibian populations worldwide. Chytrid fungus is known to be present in the southeastern U.S.
(AmphibiaWeb 2009) and is a threat to this species. Gratwicke (2008) cites disease as a threat to
salamanders in the Appalachian mountains. In addition to disease, there has been a widespread
increase of amphibian deformities and malformations
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/deformities.html).
Native amphibians in the Southeast potentially face predation pressures from introduced species
of fishes and from cattle egrets, armadillos, and wild hogs (Dodd 1997). Amphibian populations
can also be negatively affected by increases in populations of native predators such as raccoons
(Dodd 1997) and corvids (Liebezeit 2002).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Cumberland Dusky Salamander.
AmphibiaWeb (2009) states: "Maintaining intact habitat for Cumberland dusky salamanders should be a
top priority. This recently described species has had no studies done on population size or viability; they
do not receive protection by the state of Tennessee or by the federal government." NatureServe (2008)
reports that the species occurs on two protected areas, Frozen Head State Natural Area Reserve and
Obed National Scenic River.
References:
Amphibiaweb. 2009. University of California, Berkeley. http://amphibiaweb.org/
Anderson, J. A., and S. G. Tilley. 2003. Systematics of the Desmognathus ochrophaeus complex

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 310

 in the Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee. Herpetological Monographs 17:75-110.
Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1997. Imperiled amphibians: a historical persective. Pp. 165–200. In Benz, G.W.
and D.E. Collins (Eds.), Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication Number 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications,
Decatur, Georgia.
Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running and M.J.
Scott, 2007: North America. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 617-652.
http://www.ipccinfo.com/wg2report_north_america.php
Gratwicke, B (ed). 2008. Proceedings of the Appalachian Salamander Conservation Workshop.
IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN.
LaClaire, L.V. 1997. Amphibians in Peril: Resource Management in the Southeast. p. 307-321 In: Benz,
G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Southeast
Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 553
pp.
Liebezeit, Joseph R. A summary of predation by corvids on threatened and endangered species in
California and management recommendations to reduce corvid predation / principal investigators and
authors, Joseph R. Liebezeit and T. Luke George. Sacramento : Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat
Conservation Planning Branch, 2002.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2009. Salamanders of Tennessee.
http://www.state.tn.us/twra/tamp/salamanders.htm

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 311

 Scientific Name:
Desmognathus aeneus
Common Name:
Seepage Salamander
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The Seepage Salamander is distributed in relatively isolated, local populations in southwestern
North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, north-central Alabama, South Carolina, and in a disjunct
population in the Piedmont of northeastern Georgia (Harrison 1992, NatureServe 2008). There is
a gap in distribution in Alabama between western populations in the Fall Line Hills region and
eastern populations in the Blue Ridge and adjacent Piedmont regions. The record for this species
in Transylvania County, North Carolina is erroneous (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Seepage Salamanders are found near small creeks, springs, and seepage areas on the forest floor
in leaf litter and surface debris in mixed hardwood forests, and in damp shaded ravines. They
occur at elevations from 30-1340 m (NatureServe 2008). AmphibiaWeb (2009) provides this
description of their habitat: "Adults are terrestrial and live at the interface between the leaf or leaf
mold layer and the underlying soil in the vicinity of seepages and small streams in heavily shaded
hardwood or mixed forests (Harrison, 1967, 1992; Folkerts, 1968; Jones, 1981; Hairston, 1987;
Bruce, 1991). When active, adults are nocturnal (Brandon and Huheey, 1975), typically remain
under surface cover, and are not known to climb or actively burrow (Harrison, 1967; Folkerts,
1968; Jones, 1981; and Hairston, 1987). One apparent exception to the lack of scansorial activity
by this species was given by Wilson (1984), who observed seepage salamanders climbing on
grasses and bushes and jumping from branch to branch at a locality in central Alabama. Harper and
Guynn (1999) studied the factors affecting salamander density and distribution within four forest
types in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. They found that seepage salamanders and other
salamanders preferred moist microsites within each forest type, with the highest densities
occurring on sites with a northern and/or eastern exposure and within northern hardwood forests.
They noted that densities were lowest on 0–12-yr plots but equal on 13–39 and ≥ 40-yr plots,
suggesting a quicker recovery from clearcutting than reported by previous researchers. As plots
with salamanders had significantly higher numbers of snails than plots without them, the authors
also suggested that snails may be a necessary source of calcium for salamanders and may have a
substantial impact on salamander distribution."
Ecology:
Seepage Salamanders are fully terrestrial with no free-living aquatic larval stage. Females move from
retreats in leaf litter to the vicinity of streams and seepage areas to lay eggs which are deposited in
protected depressions or under moss (Conant and Collins 1998, AmphibiaWeb 2009). AmphibiaWeb
(2009) provides the following details on the ecology of this species: "In Alabama, clutches of eggs are
found from early February to late May, but most oviposition in west Alabama occurs in February and
March (Valentine, 1963c; Folkerts, 1968). In east Alabama, most clutches are found in April, and there
is also a fall oviposition period with egg deposition occurring from mid July to early October (Folkerts,
1968). In Georgia and North Carolina, oviposition occurs during late April to early May; hatching takes
place from late May to early August (Harrison, 1967). In Tennessee, oviposition occurs from late April

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 312

 to early May and hatching from mid June to mid July (Jones, 1981). Both sexes reach sexual maturity at
18–19 mm SVL (measured to anterior margin of vent) at 2 yr (Harrison, 1967). Arthropods are the
principal foods, primarily insects, but arachnids, isopods, amphipods, centipedes, millipedes, nematodes,
earthworms, and land snails are also eaten (Folkerts, 1968; Donovan and Folkerts, 1972; Jones, 1981).
Donovan and Folkerts (1972) also reported the occurrence of a recently hatched seepage salamander in
the stomach of a small adult male. Most of the items consumed are leaf litter species, indicating the
confinement of foraging activity to that microhabitat rather than the forest floor surface (Jones, 1981).
Predators are unknown, but individuals could be preyed upon occasionally by large sympatric
Desmognathus of other species, spring salamanders (Gyrinophilus sp.), ring-necked snakes (Diadophis
punctatus), and possibly species of birds that forage in leaf litter. Folkerts (1968) listed ring-necked
snakes as an associate of seepage salamanders in his study of Alabama populations. Eggs are deposited
under mosses, logs, leaf litter, and root mats or other objects in seepage areas or near streams (Valentine,
1963c; Harrison, 1967; Folkerts, 1968; Jones, 1981). Females lay 3–19 eggs (Bishop and Valentine,
1950; Harrison, 1967; Folkerts, 1968; Jones, 1981; Beachy, 1993a; Collazo and Marks, 1994). For a
description of eggs, see Brown and Bishop (1948); for a staging table, see Marks and Collazo (1998)."
Populations:
There are from 21-100 known locations of this salamander in North Carolilna, 14 in Tennessee,
52 in Georgia, two in South Carolina, and from 6-20 in Alabama. Total population size is
unknown.
Population Trends:
The Seepage Salamander is declining in the short term and moderately declining to relatively
stable in the long term. NatureServe (2008) provides this account of population trend: "In the
southern Appalachians, populations fluctuated over a 20-year period (early 1970s to early 1990s),
with no apparent long-term trend (Hairston and Wiley 1993). Declining in Alabama (M. Bailey,
pers. comm., 1997). Possibly declining in North Carolina (A. Braswell, pers. comm., 1997).
Listed in Tennessee as in need of management (Redmond and Scott 1996). Believed stable in
South Carolina (S. Bennett, pers. comm., 1997)."
Status:
The Seepage Salamander is critically imperiled (S1) in Tennessee, imperiled (S2) in Alabama,
vulnerable (S3) in Georgia and North Carolina, and not ranked in South Carolina. It is classified
as Near Threatened by the IUCN. It lacks legal protective status.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Seepage Salamander is threatened by poor forest management
practices. The species is threatened by clearcutting and by the conversion of hardwood forests to pine
plantations (Petranka 1998). Some populations in Alabama have been extirpated by logging activities
(Folkerts 1968, NatureServe 2008). AmphibiaWeb (2009) reports that roughly half of the known
populations in Alabama in the mid-1970's no longer exist, primarily because of various forestry
practices (G.W. Folkerts, personal communication). Ford et al. (2002) found higher abundances of
seepage salamanders in stands of older, hardwood trees, implicating the loss of mature decidious stands
as a threat to this species. Gratwicke (2008) identifies numerous threats to the seepage salamander and
other salamanders in Appalachia, including mining, logging, development, and pesticide use.
There has been widespread destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of imperiled amphibian habitats
in the Southeast (Vial and Saylor 1993, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994 in LaClaire 1997, p. 314). Dodd

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 313

 (1997) states: “The integrity of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats is important to amphibian survival,
even among species that never venture beyond a single habitat type. Furthermore, the various life history
stages (eggs, larvae, young, adults) may be differentially susceptible or sensitive to environmental
perturbations . . . Although vast areas have been cleared in the Southeast for agriculture, industry, and
urban use, there is virtually no assessment of the landscape effects of land conversion on amphibian
populations. It seems evident, however, that habitat changes (see papers in Hackney et al. 1992, Boyce
and Martin 1993), and with them changes in aquatic amphibian populations, have been enormous” (p.
177-8).
Habitat loss and degradation obviously negatively affects amphibian populations. LaClaire (1997) states:
“There is a growing body of work documenting (amphibian) population declines on sites where habitats
have been degraded or destroyed (Vickers et al. 1985, Enge and Marion 1986, Ash 1988, Dodd 1991,
Raymond and Hardy 1991, Petranka et al. 1993, Phelps and Lancia 1995, Means et al. 1996). . . Clearly,
when the habitat of a given population is destroyed, that population has gone or will shortly go extinct.
Many species may be unable to recolonize areas after local extinctions, especially when unsuitable
habitat exists between the extinct population and extant populations” (p. 325-326).
Habitat fragmentation can lead to amphibian population extirpation by disrupting metapopulation
dynamics and preventing dispersal and rescue between source and sink habitat. Dodd (1997) states:
“Land use patterns resulting in fragmentation can influence amphibian population genetic structure . . . if
populations become overly fragmented, emigration and immigration may be inhibited or stopped, thus
preventing recolonization from source populations. . . Small isolated populations are particularly
susceptible to environmental perturbations and to stochastic variation in demography that can lead to
extinction even without external perturbations. Isolation by habitat fragmentation thus becomes a threat
to the regional persistence of species” (p. 178).
Logging is detrimental for both aquatic and terrestrial amphibian habitat because it eliminates shade,
increases soil and water temperature, alters stream flow, increases sedimentation, reduces the input of
coarse woody debris and organic matter into streams, reduces forest floor litter (especially if litter is
piled and burned), reduces soil moisture, reduces and eliminates burrows and hiding places, and destroys
wetlands. Logging also frequently involves the use of herbicides which can be detrimental for
amphibians (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Logging is known to decrease
amphibian abundance and reproductive success (Dodd 1997, LaClaire 1997). LaClaire (1997) states:
“Habitat destruction and degradation resulting from timbering operations may create problems for longterm survival of imperiled amphibians (Kramer et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1993)” (p. 327).
Aquatic amphibian populations are threatened by habitat destruction and water pollution from coal
mining activities in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and by
phosphate mining in Florida (Wallace et al. 1992, LaClaire 2007).
Dodd (1997) states: “In many instances, mining occurs directly through small streams or ponds, and
mine tailings are pushed into the larger rivers. . . Mining not only destroys aquatic amphibian habitats
outright, it also results in toxic pollution, decreased pH, and siltation of streams and rivers” (p. 180).
Gore (1983) showed that low pH and high conductivity due to mining negatively affect the distribution
of larval Desmognathus salamanders in streams on the Cumberland Plateau (in Dodd 1997).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 314

 Road construction and repair and traffic degrade amphibian habitat. Roads can divide breeding locations
from overwintering sites and increase mortality for migrating adults and dispersing juveniles, and can
disrupt metapopulation dynamics and lead to population isolation, and light and noise from roads can
disrupt breeding and feeding behaviors (Dodd 1997). Dodd (1997) states: “Transportation corridors,
especially roads, can have serious deleterious effects on amphibian populations (Langton 1989). Road
construction can lead to habitat destruction in both terrestrial and aquatic environments, and can
negatively alter breeding habitats through increased siltation. Increased siltation can lead to increased
amphibian mortality because of its own secondary effects. For example, nearly all aquatic life was
eliminated downstream after U.S. HWY 441 was rebuilt in 1963 in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park” (p. 180).
Overutilization:
Amphibians are collected from the wild for use as food, pets, and for the biological and medicinal
supply markets (AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/exploitation.html). Dodd
(1997) states: “Collecting specimens for the pet trade or biological laboratories probably has had
some impact on local (Southeast) amphibian populations, but few data are available” (p. 183).
Disease or predation:
New diseases and increased susceptibility of amphibians to existing diseases are known to be
contributing to the decline of amphibian species (Blaustein et al. 1994, Laurance et al. 1996,
Berger et al. 1998, Daszak 2000, Kiesecker et al. 2001, see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/diseases.html). Stress from factors such as habitat loss and
fragmentation, chemical pollution, climate change, invasion of exotic species, increased UV-B
radiation, and natural population fluctuations may increase the susceptibility of amphibians to
disease (Carey 1993, Dodd 1997, Fellers et al. 2001, Kiesecker at al. 2001, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Pathogens known to cause infectious disease in amphibians include bacterial, fungal, viral,
metazoan, water mold, and trematode agents (Wright and Whitaker 2001 in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), has had severe impacts on
amphibian populations worldwide. Chytrid fungus is known to be present in the southeastern U.S.
(AmphibiaWeb 2009). In addition to disease, there has been a widespread increase of amphibian
deformities and malformations (http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/deformities.html).
Native amphibians in the Southeast potentially face predation pressures from introduced species
of fishes and from cattle egrets, armadillos, and wild hogs (Dodd 1997). Amphibian populations
can also be negatively affected by increases in populations of native predators such as raccoons
(Dodd 1997) and corvids (Liebezeit 2002).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect the Seepage Salamander. It is not
protected in North Carolina, Tennessee, or Georgia. It is a Priority 2 species of greatest
conservation need in Alabama, and a state species of concern in South Carolina, but these
designations do not provide regulatory protection. The species occurs on national forest lands, but
this does not provide any protection from logging, a primary threat (NatureServe 2008). The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (1994c) listed Seepage Salamanders as a Category 2 candidate in 1994,
but that designation was removed in 1996 (AmphibiaWeb 2009).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 315

 Other factors:
Other factors which may threaten the seepage salamander include water pollution from
acidification, toxins, and endocrine disrupting chemicals, reduced prey availability, climate
change, UV-B radiation, invasive species, and synergistic effects from these and other threats.
Acidification of soils and water bodies is detrimental for amphibians. Acidification of amphibian
habitat can result from acid precipitation and from acid mine drainage. Acid disrupts ion balance in
both terrestrial and aquatic lifestages of amphibians, impairs chemosensory reception, and inhibits
larval feeding (Dodd 1997). Embryos and larvae are particularly sensitive to decreased pH.
Terrestrial salamanders avoid acidified soils. Acidification also has indirect effects which can kill
embryos, larvae, and adults by interfering with egg development, disrupting trophic interactions,
and inducing chronic environmental stress. Low pH also makes amphibians more susceptible to
deleterious effects from heavy metals and increased UV-B radiation (Dodd 1997).
Environmental toxins pose a threat to amphibians in the Southeast due to lethal and sub-lethal
effects which can include mortality, decreased growth rate, behavioral and developmental
abnormalities, lowered reproductive success, weakened immunity, and hermaphroditism (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to toxic
substances because of the permeable nature of their skin. A wide range of chemical stressors are
known to negatively affect amphibians including heavy metals, pesticides, phenols, carbon
tetrachloride, nitrogen based fertilizers, and road salt (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009). The
presence of toxins can also make amphibians more susceptible to disease (Dodd 1997).
Amphibians are also threatened by endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment (eg. Hayes
et al. 2006). Dodd (1997) states: “Amphibians are likely to be especially sensitive to the action of
endocrine mimics because they are in close direct contact with chemicals in their environment,
and the amphibian skin and egg capsule are highly permeable. Because hormones normally
function in minute quantities and are vital to normal development, susceptibility to xenobiotics
could be devastating during the complex changes that occur during hormonally-induced amphibian
metamorphosis” (p. 182).
Toxins and other chemicals can also harm amphibians by reducing food availability. Dodd (1997)
states: “If species that are preyed upon by amphibians decline or disappear, amphibian populations
may be expected to follow suit. The use of pesticides and the influence of toxics, pH, and habitat
alteration all may be expected to affect amphibian prey populations” (p. 184).
Climate change poses a threat for amphibians because it will alter rainfall and temperature patterns
and affect soil moisture (Dodd 1997, Field et al. 2007). Amphibians are particularly sensitive to
minute changes in moisture and temperature, and changes in climate can affect breeding behavior,
reproductive success, and immune function (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ClimateChange.html). Amphibians which breed in temporary
ponds or in water bodies that are sensitive to changes in groundwater level are particularly
susceptible to climate change effects. Drought can lead to localized extirpation, which combined
with habitat fragmentation and impaired dispersal, can contribute to extinction (Dodd 1997).
During the past few decades, levels of UV-B radiation in the atmosphere have significantly
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 316

 increased. For amphibians, UV-B radiation can cause direct mortality as well as sublethal effects
including decreased hatching success, decreased growth rate, developmental abnormalities, and
immune dysfunction (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/UVB.html).
Southeastern amphibians are also threatened by the invasion of non-native species which prey on
or compete with native amphibians. Nonnative fishes can negatively affect amphibian populations
through predation, competition, and disease introduction. Introduced nonnative amphibians such as the
marine toad (Bufo marinus) and Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) are potentially harmful for
native amphibians in the Southeast. Rossi (1981) found that anuran species richness was reduced in an
area where B. marinus was established (in Dodd 1997). Introduced mammals, such as armadillos and
wild hogs, and introduced birds like cattle egrets “may exact a substantial toll on amphibian
populations” (Dodd 1997). Invasive fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also a potential threat for
Southeastern amphibians. Dodd (1997) states: “Ground dwelling vertebrates are especially sensitive to
this ravenous predator, and fire ants have been reported to kill endangered Houston toads (Bufo
houstonensis) as they metamorphose. Fire ants are especially abundant in the moist perimeter
surrounding ponds and lakes, and they can float in mats across ponds from vegetation clump to
vegetation clump. Fire ants have few predators and have expanded their range throughout the
Southeast” (p. 183). See: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/IntroSp.html.
Synergisms between multiple threats could contribute to the extinction of Southeast amphibians.
Multiple factors acting together have both lethal and sublethal effects
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/synergisms.html). For example, increased UV-B radiation
increases the susceptibility of amphibians to the effects of contaminants, pathogens and climate
change. Dodd (1997): “The amphibians of this area (the Southeast), and particularly the fully
aquatic species, face a multitude of threats to their long-term existence. These threats generally do
not act independently, but instead act in concert to have potentially serious long-term effects” (p.
185).
References:
AmphibiaWeb. 2009. University of California Berkeley. http://www.amphibiaweb.org
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins.1998. Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern/Central North America,
3rd ed. Peterson Field Guides. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 615 pp.
Dodd, C. K., Jr. 1997. “Imperiled amphibians: a historical perspective.” Aquatic Fauna in Peril:
The Southeastern Perspective, G. W. Benz and D. E. Collins, ed., Special Pub. 1, Southeast
Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA, 165-200.
Folkerts, G. W. 1968. The genus Desmognathus Baird (Amphibia: Plethodontidae) in Alabama.
Ph.D. diss., Auburn Univ., Auburn, Alabama. 129 pp.
Ford, W.M., B.R. Chapman, M.A. Menzel, and R.H. Odom. 2002. Stand age and habitat
influences on salamanders in Appalachian cove hardwood forests. Forest Ecology and
Management 155(1-3):131-141.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 317

 Gratwicke, B (ed). 2008. Proceedings of the Appalachian Salamander Conservation Workshop.
IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN.
Harrison, J.R. 1992. Desmognathus aeneus. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles.
534:1-4.
Hayes, T.B. et al. 2006. Pesticide Mixtures,Endocrine Disruption,and Amphibian Declines:Are
We Underestimating the Impact?. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(1).
LaClaire, L. V. 1997. Amphibians in peril: resource management in the southeast. Pages.
307–338. in G. W. Benz, D. E. Collins, editors. Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern
perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur,
Georgia, USA.
Liebezeit, J.R. 2002. A summary of predation by Corvids on threatened and endangered species
in California and management recommendations to reduce corvid predation.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 318

 Scientific Name:
Dexteria floridana
Common Name:
Florida Fairy Shrimp
G Rank:
GH

IUCN Status:
CR - Critically endangered

Range:
NatureServe (2008) states that Dexteria floridiana is only known from the type locality, a
"temporary pool approximately 6 km south of Gainesville", Florida. The type locality is probably
lost. It is possible (though unlikely) that the Florida fairy shrimp may still exist in some
undeveloped portions of Florida or possibly Cuba (Rogers, 2002). The total range is quantified as
less than 100 square km (about 40 square miles).
Habitat:
This species was only ever found in a temporary pool (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
This species is known from only one population which was lost to habitat development. Unless the
species is found in other populations, it may be extinct.
Population Trends:
The type locality of this species was lost to development and it is not known from anywhere else
(Rogers 2002).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that Dexteria flloridiana may be extinct. It is ranked as critically
endangered by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
The only known location was destroyed by development (Rogers 2002).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No regulatory mechanisms protect this species. The only known population was lost to
development.
References:
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1983. How to Know the Freshwater Crustacea. Wm. C. Brown Co.
Publishers. Dubuque, Iowa. 277 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 319

 Rogers, D.C. 2002. A morphological re-evaluation of the anostracan families Linderiellidae and
Polyartemiidae, with a redescription of the linderiellid Dexteria floridana (Dexter 1956)
(Crustacea: Branchiopoda). Hydrobiologia, 486: 57-61.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 320

 Scientific Name:
Distocambarus carlsoni
Common Name:
Mimic Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern
Range:
The Mimic crayfish occurs in at least three counties in northwestern South Carolina in the
Savannah and Saluda river drainages (Eversole and Jones 2004).
Habitat:
NatureServe (2008) reports that D. carlsoni forms complex burrows in sandy clay soil rich in
humus with a relatively high water table, but with static water flow.
Ecology:
According to NatureServe (2008) the type colony occupies an area of about 200 square meters.
D. carlsoni seems to partition environment with Cambarus carolinus by occupying the area where
there is no significant movement in the ground water.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) crudely estimates that Mimic crayfish have 6-20 populations with a total of
2500-10,000 individuals. It occurs in the Savannah and Saluda River basins in Abbeville,
Greenwood, and Saluda Cos., South Carolina (Eversole and Jones, 2004). Population and trend
information are unknown.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as globally imperiled and under review in South Carolina
(SNR). The American Fisheries Society reclassifed this species from special concern to
threatened (Taylor et al. 2007). The State of South Carolina lists it as a Highest Priority
Conservation Species (SCDNR 2005).
Habitat destruction:
Concerning threats to this species' habitat, NatureServe (2010) states: "In the Savannah River Basin
surface water abstraction from the Savannah river provides drinking water for the municipalities. There
are also 183 facilities, including municipalities and industry, authorized to discharge waste water into
the Savannah River Basin (Georgia River Network 2002). Habitat destruction and alteration has been
stated as 'challenges' to this species (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 2005)."
Concerning threats to crayfish in South Carolina, SCDNR (2005) reports:
"Physical alteration of habitat also represents a challenge to the survival of crayfish. Some aquatic
crayfishes are quite adaptable and can live in ponds, impoundments and roadside ditches, while others
are more sensitive to habitat alteration. Some crayfishes are oxygen regulators and are able to increase
ventilation rates in response to reduced oxygen conditions, while others, the oxygen conformers, are
unable to do this (Hobbs 1991). Therefore, some species are better equipped to survive when the flow of
water slows and oxygen levels decline. Some species… have been eliminated from parts of their range
as a result of damming activities associated with reservoir construction. Channelization and dredging
can also be very detrimental to aquatic crayfish that require rocks, crevices or tree roots along undercut
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 321

 banks as hiding places (Hobbs and Hall 1974). In general, crayfish are not as sensitive to siltation as
some aquatic invertebrates such as mussels, but severe siltation has caused declines in or the extirpation
of many populations of crayfish (Hobbs and Hall 1974).
Pollution has been known to eliminate crayfish from streams. Ortmann (1909) noted the extirpation of
crayfish from some sections of streams and rivers due to mining and oil refineries. Crayfish are harmed
by a variety of insecticides, herbicides and industrial chemicals (Eversole et al. 1996). Juvenile crayfish
are generally about four times as sensitive to water borne pollution than adults; early instars are about
three times as sensitive as juveniles (Eversole and Sellers 1996). There is little knowledge of the
differences in sensitivity to toxins among species. Nutrient enrichment is less likely to harm crayfish
than other aquatic life because they are omnivorous and can act as scavengers as well as primary and
secondary consumers. Hobbs and Hall (1974) noted several casual observations in which crayfish were
actually more abundant downstream of areas with large amounts of garbage or animal remains.
Enrichment may be harmful to crayfish, however, when it results in oxygen depletion (Hobbs and Hall
1974). Pollution of groundwater may impact terrestrial burrowers, because they inhabit water trapped in
their burrows.
The most serious known challenge to terrestrial burrowing crayfish is the alteration of soil hydrology.
These species appear to be able to coexist with some agriculture and timber harvest practices, although
they may not survive frequent tilling of soil. In some areas, fire suppression or the lack of fire
management may be a threat, since some species appear to prefer piedmont prairies, savannahs and
other open canopy habitats to densely wooded areas."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
Other factors:
This species is potentially threatened by the spread of invasive crayfish. According to SCDNR
(2005): "The arrival of introduced species is probably the greatest challenge to crayfish (Lodge et
al. 2000 a,b). The ranges and abundances of many native crayfish may have been reduced by
invasive crayfish, both in the United States and in Europe (Lodge et al. 2000a; Hobbs et al. 1989).
Prevention of future introductions is most likely the only effective way to deal with the challenges
caused by nonnative crayfish. No methods for eliminating invasive species without also harming
native species are currently available."
References:
Eversole, A.G. and B.C. Sellers. 1996. Comparison of relative crayfish toxicity values.
Freshwater Crayfish. 11:274-285.
Eversole, A.G. and D.R. Jones. 2004. Key to the crayfish of South Carolina. Unpublished report.
Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. 43 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 322

 Eversole, A.G., J.M. Whetstone and B.C. Sellers. 1996. Handbook of relative acute toxicity
values for crayfish. S. C. Sea Grant Consortium, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
The most serious known challenge to terrestrial burrowing crayfish is the alteration of soil
Administration. 8 pp.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1983. DISTOCAMBARUS (Fitzcambarus) CARLSONI, a new subgenus and
piedmont species of crayfish (Decapoda: Cambaridae) from South Carolina. Proc. Biol. Soc.
Washington 96(3):429-439.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.
Hobbs, H.H. III, J.P. Jass and J. V. Huner. 1989. A review of global crayfish introductions with
particular emphasis on two North American species (Decapoda, Cambaridae). Crustaceana.
56(3):299-316.
Hobbs, H.H. III. 1991. Decapoda. Pages 823-858. In: Ecology and classification of North
American freshwater invertebrates, J. Thorp and A.P. Covich, eds. Academic Press. New York,
New York. 911 pp.
Hobbs, H.H. Jr. and E.T. Hall, Jr. 1974. pages 195-214. In: Pollution ecology of freshwater
invertebrates, C.W. Hart, Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller, eds. Academic Press. New York, New York. 389
pp.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich and J. Skurdal. 2000a. Nonindigenous crayfishes
threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: lessons from Europe. Fisheries. 25(8):7- 20.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich and J. Skurdal. 2000b. Reducing impacts of exotic
crayfish introductions: new policies needed. Fisheries. 25(8):21-23.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Ortmann, A.E. 1909. The destruction of the fresh-water fauna in western Pennsylvania.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 48(191):90-111.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2005. South Carolina Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2005-2010. Available online at
http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/pdfs/action_plans/sc_action_plan.pdf. Last Accessed August
3, 2009.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 323

 Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 324

 Scientific Name:
Distocambarus devexus
Common Name:
Broad River Burrowing Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of Distocambarus devexus is less than 100-250 square km (less than about 40 to 100
square miles) according to NatureServe (2008). It is found in the Savannah River basin in Elbert,
Oglethorpe, and Wilkes counties, Georgia (Hobbs, 1989). A very experienced collector in an
extensive multi-year program found only three localities.
Habitat:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species burrows in floodplain in sandy clay soil. According
to Skelton (2008), this species occupies "[s]imple and complex burrows adjacent to streams or in
low areas where the water table is near the surface of the ground. A single specimen was collected
from a burrow that did not penetrate the water table and was only damp in the bottom. This
species, particularly juveniles, are frequently collected in temporary pools and ephemeral
streams."
Ecology:
The Broad River Burrowing crayfish is a primary burrower with moderately complex burrows, as
reported by NatureServe (2008).
Populations:
There are five reported occurrences of this species (Barry and Skelton 2004), with far less than
1000 total individuals. Hobbs (1981) estimated the largest colony at less than 24 adults.
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this very rare species.
Status:
This species has a restricted range. NatureServe (2008) ranks this crayfish as critically imperiled,
while the State of Georgia classifies Distocambarus devexus as threatened. Barry and Skelton
(2004) found five occurrences and consider the Broad River Burrowing Crayfish to be
endangered. It is ranked as endangered by the American Fisheries Society (2008) and as
vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
Distocambarus devexus is historically and currently stressed by impoundment of the Savannah
River, according to NatureServe (2008). Skelton (2008) says that "[t]he small range of this
species makes it vulnerable to land disturbing activities around streams and wetlands."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Skelton (2008) recommends that "[a]reas with burrows should be protected from land disturbing
activities." This crayfish is listed as threatened by the state of Georgia, but this designation does
not protect the species' habitat.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 325

 References:
Barry, K.H. and C.E. Skelton. Distribution and Conservation Status of Four Primary Burrowing
Crayfishes in Georgia. Friday paper presentations; Georgia Academy of Science. Georgia
Journal of Science March 22, 2004.
Hobbs, H.H. Jr, and P.H. Carlson. 1983. Distocambarus (Decapoda: Cambaridae) elevated to
generic rank, with an account of D. crockeri, a new species from South Carolina.. Proceedings of
the Biological Society of Washington. Vol. 96:3, (420-428).
Hobbs, Horton H., Jr. 1981. The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contrib. to Zool. 318:1549.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Skelton, C.E. 2008. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Species account for
Distocambarus devexus. Available online at
www.georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/distocambarus_devexus.pdf. Last
accessed April 16, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 326

 Scientific Name:
Distocambarus youngineri
Common Name:
Newberry Burrowing Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Distocambarus youngineri is only known from the Saluda River drainage in Newberry County,
South Carolina (Eversole and Jones 2004). Price (2006) states that "it has been found only in
Newberry County, primarily within a portion of the Saluda River basin but also at one site within
the Broad River basin."
Habitat:
The Newberry Burrowing crayfish can be found in complex burrows in sandy clay soil with dense
growth of Pinus, Quercus, and Nyssa surrounding small woodland pools (NatureServe 2008).
According to Price (2006): “D. youngineri is found in moist terrestrial areas with leaf litter and a
mixed-hardwood overstory, usually near stream headwaters or intermittent streams. Although it is
found in the general area of headwater streams, it is not found very close to streambanks and does
not appear to be directly associated with the streams themselves. In areas where D. youngineri is
found, the soil becomes saturated and may be covered with shallow water during periods of
precipitation in the winter, spring and sometimes into the early summer. Water has been found in
the burrows even under drought conditions. This species appears to have been extirpated from its
type locality following a clearcut in the area during 1989. Most of the sites where D. youngineri
has been recorded are in moist wooded areas, but it has also been found in a selectively logged
pine stand and in grass lawn areas.”
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are 6 - 20 populations with less than 1000 individuals
extant. A recent status survey by an experienced collector found ten locations. Eversole (1995)
found this species at two historical sites and four new sites within the Saluda River basin in
Newberry Co., South Carolina.
Population Trends:
According to NatureServe (2008), this species is facing a short-term decline of 10-30 percent
based on the fact that the species is no longer present at its type-locality. The area around the
type-locality was clearcut in 1989 and repeated attempts have been made to recollect there
without success.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled. The State of South Carolina lists it
as a species of Highest Conservation Priority. It was also a Federal C-2 Candidate species before
that list was abolished. It is ranked as vulnerable by IUCN and as endangered by the American
Fisheries Society.
Price (2006) reports: “There is concern that D. youngineri may be in decline. Eversole (1995)
found the species at only six sites despite intensive survey efforts; it now appears to be extirpated
from one of those sites. A more recent survey (Welch and Eversole unpublished data) found
populations at three new sites. However, all of these new locations were still within a small

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 327

 portion of Newberry County. Given the extremely restricted distribution and low population
numbers of D. youngineri, it should be protected. Land that this species inhabits should be
protected, since its restricted distribution makes D. youngineri so vulnerable.”
Habitat destruction:
This species was extirpated from its type locality by a clearcut, and logging activities could
threaten other populations (NatureServe 2008). Water drawdown also threatens this species'
habitat.
SCDNR (2005) reports: "Physical alteration of habitat also represents a challenge to the survival
of crayfish. Some aquatic crayfishes are quite adaptable and can live in ponds, impoundments and
roadside ditches, while others are more sensitive to habitat alteration. Some crayfishes are
oxygen regulators and are able to increase ventilation rates in response to reduced oxygen
conditions, while others, the oxygen conformers, are unable to do this (Hobbs 1991). Therefore,
some species are better equipped to survive when the flow of water slows and oxygen levels
decline. Some species… have been eliminated from parts of their range as a result of damming
activities associated with reservoir construction. Channelization and dredging can also be very
detrimental to aquatic crayfish that require rocks, crevices or tree roots along undercut banks as
hiding places (Hobbs and Hall 1974). In general, crayfish are not as sensitive to siltation as some
aquatic invertebrates such as mussels, but severe siltation has caused declines in or the extirpation
of many populations of crayfish (Hobbs and Hall 1974). Pollution has been known to eliminate
crayfish from streams. Ortmann (1909) noted the extirpation of crayfish from some sections of
streams and rivers due to mining and oil refineries. Crayfish are harmed by a variety of
insecticides, herbicides and industrial chemicals (Eversole et al. 1996). Juvenile crayfish are
generally about four times as sensitive to water borne pollution than adults; early instars are about
three times as sensitive as juveniles (Eversole and Sellers 1996). There is little knowledge of the
differences in sensitivity to toxins among species. Nutrient enrichment is less likely to harm
crayfish than other aquatic life because they are omnivorous and can act as scavengers as well as
primary and secondary consumers. Hobbs and Hall (1974) noted several casual observations in
which crayfish were actually more abundant downstream of areas with large amounts of garbage or
animal remains. Enrichment may be harmful to crayfish, however, when it results in oxygen
depletion (Hobbs and Hall 1974). Pollution of groundwater may impact terrestrial burrowers,
because they inhabit water trapped in their burrows.
The most serious known challenge to terrestrial burrowing crayfish is the alteration of soil
hydrology. These species appear to be able to coexist with some agriculture and timber harvest
practices, although they may not survive frequent tilling of soil. In some areas, fire suppression or
the lack of fire management may be a threat, since some species appear to prefer piedmont
prairies, savannahs and other open canopy habitats to densely wooded areas."

Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species was found is in the Andrew Pickens Ranger District of the Sumter National Forest,
but the majority of its populations are on private land (Eversole 1995). No existing regulatory
mechanisms protect this species or its habitat. Even on the National Forest, it is threatened by
logging activities.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 328

 References:
Eversole, A. G. 1995. DISTOCAMBARUS (Fitzcambarus) YOUNGINERI status in South
Carolina. Final Report. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ashville, North Carolina. 27
pp.
Eversole, A.G. 1995. Distribution of three rare crayfish species in South Carolina, USA.
Freshwater Crayfish, 8: 113-120.
Eversole, A.G. and B.C. Sellers. 1996. Comparison of relative crayfish toxicity values.
Freshwater Crayfish. 11:274-285.
Eversole, A.G. and D.R. Jones. 2004. Key to the crayfish of South Carolina. Unpublished report.
Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. 43 pp.
Eversole, A.G., J.M. Whetstone and B.C. Sellers. 1996. Handbook of relative acute toxicity
values for crayfish. S. C. Sea Grant Consortium, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. 8 pp.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.
Hobbs, H.H. III, J.P. Jass and J. V. Huner. 1989. A review of global crayfish introductions with
particular emphasis on two North American species (Decapoda, Cambaridae). Crustaceana.
56(3):299-316.
Hobbs, H.H. III. 1991. Decapoda. Pages 823-858. In: Ecology and classifi cation of North
American freshwater invertebrates, J. Thorp and A.P. Covich, eds. Academic Press. New York,
New York. 911 pp.
Hobbs, H.H. Jr. and E.T. Hall, Jr. 1974. pages 195-214. In: Pollution ecology of freshwater
invertebrates, C.W. Hart, Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller, eds. Academic Press. New York, New York. 389
pp.
Hobbs, Horton, H., Jr., and P.H. Carlson. 1985. A new member of the genus DISTOCAMBARUS
(Decapoda: Cambaridae) from the Saluda Basin, South Carolina. Proc. of the Biol. Soc. of
Washington, 98(1):81-89.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich and J. Skurdal. 2000b. Reducing impacts of exotic
crayfish introductions: new policies needed. Fisheries. 25(8):21-23.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich and J. Skurdal. 2000a. Nonindigenous crayfishes
threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: lessons from Europe. Fisheries. 25(8):7- 20.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 329

 Ortmann, A.E. 1909. The destruction of the fresh-water fauna in western Pennsylvania.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 48(191):90-111.
Price, Jennifer. 2006. Distocambarus youngineri factsheet prepared for SCDNR. Available
online at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/Distocambarusyoungineri.pdf. Last accessed August
15, 2009.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2005. South Carolina Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2005-2010. Available online at
http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/pdfs/action_plans/sc_action_plan.pdf. Last Accessed August
3, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Williams, A.B., L.G. Abele, D.L. Felder, H.H. Hobbs, Jr., R.B. Manning, P.A. McLaughlin, and
I.P. Farlante. 1989. A List of Common and scientific names of decapod crustaceans from
America north of Mexico. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 17: 77 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 330

 Scientific Name:
Elassoma boehlkei
Common Name:
Carolina Pygmy Sunfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The Carolina pygmy sunfish is limited to tributaries of the Waccamaw and Santee Rivers in North
and South Carolina, where it has an irregular and localized distribution (Quattro et al. 2001,
Sandel and Harris 2007). Rohde and Arndt (1987) reported that the species occurs in two areas in
the Waccamaw River drainage, and one in the middle Santee River drainage. In the upper
Waccamaw of North Carolina, the species occurs in Juniper Creek, which joins the Waccamaw
downstream of Lake Waccamaw in Brunswick and Columbus counties, and in a roadside ditch that
drains into Big Creek, which is a tributary to Lake Waccamaw, Columbus County (Rohde and
Arndt 1987). In the lower Waccamaw in South Carolina, the species occurs in old ricefield
ditches off Jericho Creek in the Samworth Game Management Area, near Georgetown,
Georgetown County (Ibid.). Finally, in the Santee River in South Carolina, the species occurs in
"a small pool adjacent to Big Pine Tree Creek, near Camden, Kershaw County" (Ibid.) Quattro et
al. (2001) and Sandel and Harris (2007) both report a small number of additional populations in
these general areas, including in the Lumber and Cape Fear Drainages in North Carolina and in
additional tributary ditches to the Waccamaw in South Carolina.
Habitat:
Sandel and Harris (2007) observe that the species occupies heavily vegetated, tannic swamps and
sloughs with substrates of mud or fine sand covered by leaf litter. The species is found in
roadside ditches, which may be a means to avoid competition and predation from congeners that
have excluded the species from more optimal habitat (Sandel and Harris 2007).
Ecology:
Rohde and Arndt (1987) observed that the species is subject to pronounced variations in abundance,
which may have the effect of increasing the risk of local extirpations.
Populations:
Total abundance of the Carolina pygmy sunfish has not been estimated or reported. Rohde and
Arndt (1987) showed four collection sites in three population centers and reported that the
species can undergo pronounced fluctuations in abundance, which in their view may "explain an
apparent disjunct population." At the time, the authors believed further sampling would potentially
identify more populations in the lower Waccamaw and Santee, but that extensive sampling had
occurred in the upper Waccamaw without documentation of additional populations (Rohde and
Arndt 1987). Sandel and Harris (2007) refer to a few additional populations. They note that the
species' occurrence is irregular and localized, that it can be common in the few known habitat
patches, and finally, that it can undergo large seasonal fluctuations in abundance (Sandel and
Harris 2007).
Population Trends:
Sandel and Harris (2007) observe that populations in South Carolina seem stable, but that
populations near Lake Waccamaw in North Carolina seem to be in decline.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 331

 Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists the species as critically imperiled in both North and South Carolina,
Jelks et al. (2008) list the species as threatened, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list it as a
species of concern. It is also listed as threatened by both North and South Carolina. Sandel and
Harris (2007) specifically recommended "a federal listing of threatened" for the Carolina pygmy
sunfish. At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological Diversity,
there was agreement that the Carolina pygmy sunfish should be listed as theatened (SFC and CBD
2010).
Habitat destruction:
Jelks et al. (2008) list the present or threatened destruction, modification or reduction in habitat
or range as a primary factor in the Carolina pygmy sunfish being considered a threatened species.
Sandel and Harris (2007) report that "roadside populations are certainly affected by pollution and
habitat alteration," and that "urbanization has been associated with local extirpation events."
Likewise, Rohde and Arndt (1987) observe that the few number of populations and their
"occurrence mostly along roadsides, with attendant high risks from various types of potential
habitat alteration or pollution, underscores" the species' status as vulnerable and emphasize that it
should be "given a large measure of protection by the appropriate state governments as well as by
the Federal Government."
Overutilization:
Sandel and Harris (2007) note that "some populations are at considerable risk of over-harvesting
by private aquarists."
Disease or predation:
Sandel and Harris (2007) note that predation from congeners may be a factor in this species
occurring in roadside ditches, which are likely less than optimal habitat.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that none to few occurrences are appropriately protected and that the
species occurs in very few if any protected areas. It is listed as threatened by both North and South
Carolina, which raises its profile and perhaps provides some protection from collection, but does
not provide substantial protections from habitat destruction and pollution, which are major threats
to the species.
Other factors:
There are a number of other threats to the continued existence of the Carolina pygmy sunfish.
Sandel and Harris (2007) report that "competition with congeners may exclude this species from
optimum habitat," and that "recent droughts have severely affected the populations in North
Carolina," indicating that both of these factors are threats to the species. Given the threat of
droughts, climate change may be an additional threat should it result in more climate variability,
including more extreme droughts.
Pollution is a major threat to the species. A "Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy"
developed by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources divides the state into various
ecobasins, identifies species of concern in those ecobasins, and characterizes the condition of
habitats (Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/). The Carolina pygmy sunfish occurs in the Pee
Dee Coastal Plain Ecobasin, which is identified as having serious problems with water pollution,
including within rivers that provide habitat for the sunfish. The Conservation strategy notes:

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 332

 "Water quality was impaired at 70 of 110 sites (64 percent) sampled by SCDHEC. Aquatic life
uses were not supported at 23 sites due to low dissolved oxygen levels (11 sites), abnormal pH
values (5 sites), copper contamination (3 sites), lack of invertebrate diversity (3 sites) and zinc
contamination (1 site). Recreational uses were not supported at three sites due to the presence of
high concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria. Due to high levels of mercury in fish tissue,
SCDHEC has issued a fish consumption advisory for the entire length of every major river
(Pocotaligo River, Black River, Black Mingo Creek, Lynches River, Pee Dee River, Little Pee
Dee River, Lumber River, Waccamaw River) in the ecobasin."
References:
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Jones, W. J., and J. M. Quattro. 1999. Phylogenetic affinities of pygmy sunfishes (ELASSOMA)
inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequesnces. Copeia 1999:470-474.
Menhinick, E. F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. 227 pp.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Quattro, J. M., W. J. Jones, and F. C. Rohde. 2001. Evolutionarily significant units of rare pygmy
sunfishes (genus ELASSOMA). Copeia 2001:514-520.
Quattro, J. M., W. J. Jones, J. M. Grady, and F. C. Rohde. 2001. Gene-gene concordance and the
phylogenetic relationships among rare and widespread pygmy sunfishes (genus ELASSOMA).
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 18:217-226.
Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott.
1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American
Fisheries Society, Special Publishing 20. 183 pp.
Rohde, F. C. 1997. Carolina pygmy sunfish. Pages 27-28 in E. F. Menhinick and A. L. Braswell
(editors). Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North Carolina. Part IV. A reevaluation of
the Freshwater Fishes. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural
Sciences and the North Carolina Biological Survey 11.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 333

 Rohde, F. C. and R. G. Arndt. 1987. Two new species of pygmy sunfishes (Elassomatidae,
Elassoma) from the Carolinas. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.
139:65-85.
Sandel, M., and P. M. Harris. 2007. Threatened fishes of the world: Elassoma boehlkei (Rohde
and Arndt 1987) (Elassomatidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 78(4):289-290. [published
online in 2006]
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.
Shute, J. R., P. W. Shute, and D. G. Lindquist. 1981. Fishes of the Waccamaw River drainage.
Brimleyana (6):1-24.
Smith, B. S. 1996. A population survey of ELASSOMA BOEHLKEI (Carolina pygmy sunfish)
G1 S1 C2 at The Nature Conservanc'y Black River Swamp and Waccamaw River preserves, South
Carolina. Final Report.
Starnes, W. C. 1995. Taxonomic validation for fish species on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Category 2 species list. 28 pp.
Warren, M. L., Jr., B. M. Burr, S. J. Walsh, H. L. Bart, Jr., R. C. Cashner, D. A. Etnier, B. J.
Freeman, B. R. Kuhajda, R. L. Mayden, H. W. Robison, S. T. Ross, and W. C. Starnes. 2000.
Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern
United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-31.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 334

 Scientific Name:
Elimia acuta
Common Name:
Acute Elimia
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of the Acute Elimia occurs in a narrow range in Alabama and Tennessee. This
freshwater snail occurs in the main channel of the Cahaba River in north Central Alabama near
Booth's Ford in Shelby County (Mirarchi 2004, NatureServe 2008). In the Tennessee River basin,
this snail occurs in discrete stream drainages (P. Johnson, AL DCNR, pers. comm., November
2006 cited in NatureServe 2008). This snail occurred historically in the Little Cahaba River in
Bibb County, but was not detected there in 1993 (Bogan and Pierson 1993). There are historical
records for the Acute Elimia in the Coosa River basin, but they are disputed (NatureServe 2008).
Goodrich (1941) reported this species from tributaries of the Tennessee River in northern
Alabama and southern Tennessee.
Habitat:
The Acute Elimia occurs in moderate to fast current on bedrock and slabs (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are from 6 - 20 populations of Acute Elimia, providing
the following details: "Goodrich (1930) documented this species at Muscle Shoals, (Tennessee
River), Jackson and Franklin Cos., Alabama; the Tennessee River, Flint River, Piney Creek
(Limestone Co., Alabama), and Elk River. Bogan and Pierson (1993) recently identified this
species at 2 sites. Elimia acuta is more broadly distributed in the Tennessee River basin, however,
populations are restricted to discrete stream drainages (P. Johnson, AL DCNR, pers. comm.,
November 2006)." Total population size for Acute Elimia is estimated at less than 1000
individuals (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Acute Elimia is very rare and apparently declining (estimated
10-30 percent decline). Only one occurrence has been reported from recent surveys (Pierson
1997 pers. comm. in NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Acute Elimia as critically imperiled in Alabama and Tennessee. The
IUCN classifies this snail as Vulnerable. It is a Tier One Species of Greatest Conservation Need
in Tennessee. It is a Federal Species of Concern.
Habitat destruction:
The Acute Elimia is threatened by habitat loss and degradation due to a variety of activities. This species
may have been extirpated from the Coosa River due to construction of the Logan Martin and Lay Dams
(NatureServe 2008). This snail has declined in the Cahaba and Little Cahaba Rivers due to excessive
sedimentation and eutrophication (Hartfield 1994). This species is threatened by poor water quality in
the Cahaba River due to high nutrient inputs (McGregor et al. 2000).
Sedimentation threatens the Acute Elimia because it causes shell erosion, decreases the survival of eggs,
and inhibits the growth of algae on which snails depend for food (Hart and Fuller 1974, Neves et al.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 335

 1997, Herrig and Shute 2002). This snail is vulnerable to extinction because of habitat loss and
alteration, and barriers to dispersal created by dams (Herrig and Shute 2002). The Elimia’s habitat is
also threatened by spring modification and diversion, which alters the aquatic conditions to which
springsnails are adapted, and by groundwater withdrawal which negatively affects the quantity and
quality of spring water and artificially creates drought-like conditions (Hobbs 1992, Hubbs 1995, Herrig
and Shute 2002). Agricultural activities and livestock grazing also potentially threaten the Acute Elimia,
as springsnails are particularly vulnerable to decreased water quality and are known to be negatively
impacted by grazing (Herrig and Shute 2002).
In Tennessee, the Acute Elimia is threatened by habitat loss and degradation due to forestry, mining,
agriculture, grazing, commercial and industrial development, oil and natural gas drilling, dams and
impoundments, and withdrawal of ground and surface water (Tennessee Wildlife Action Plan, available
at: http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/tennessee.html Last accessed June 9, 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no regulatory mechanisms to protect the Acute Elimia. NatureServe (2008) reports that
no occurrences are adequately protected and managed. It has no protective status in either Alabama
or Tennessee. This snail is a Tier One Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Tennessee, but
this classification affords no regulatoray protection. This snail is a Federal Species of Concern
(http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=G09A Last accessed
June 8, 2009), but this designation does not confer any regulatory protection.
Other factors:
Several other factors threaten the Acute Elimia including pollution and invasive species. Aquatic
habitats in southern forests are threatened by immediate and persistent impacts of pollution from
petroleum spills, urban and agricultural pesticides, and chemical, manufacturing, and wood product
wastes (Abell et al. 2000, Hart and Fuller 1974, Herrig and Shute 2002). Native mollusk species
such as the Acute Elimia are also threatened by competition and predation from invasive species
such as zebra mussels (Hart and Fuller 1974, Herrig and Shute 2002, Tennessee Wildlife Action
Plan 2005).
References:
Abell, Robin A.; Olson, David M.; Dinerstein, Eric [and others]. 2000. Freshwater ecoregions of
North America: a conservation assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. 319 p.
Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Pierson. 1993. Survey of the aquatic gastropods of the Cahaba River Basin,
Alabama: 1992. Final report submitted in October 1993 to Alabama Natural Heritage Program,
Montgomery, Alabama, Contract Number 1922. 20 pp.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 336

 FWS 2009. Acute Elimia Species Account. Federal Species of Concern water quality and are known to
be negatively impacted by grazing (Herrig and Shute 2002).
(http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=G09A Last accessed
June 8, 2009
Goodrich, C. 1930. Goniobasis of the vicinity of Muscle Shoals. Occasional Papers of the
dams and impoundments, and withdrawal of ground and surface water (Tennessee Wildlife Action
Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 209: 1-25.
Goodrich, C. 1941. Pleuroceridae of the small streams of the Alabama River system. Occasional
Papers of the University of Zoology, University of Michigan, 427: 1-10.
Hart, C.W., Jr.; and S.L.H. Fuller. 1974. Pollution ecology of freshwater invertebrates. New
York: Academic Press. 312 p.
Hartfield, Paul. 1994. Status review summary of seven Mobile River Basin aquatic snails.
USFWS, Jackson, MS. 11 pp.
Herrig, J. and P. Shute. 2002. Chapter 23: aquatic animals and their habitats. Southern Region,
USDA Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority. 45 pp. In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G.,
eds. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 pp. Available at:
www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_23e.pdf Last accessed June 8, 2009.
Hinkley, A.A. 1906. Some shells from Mississippi and Alabama. The Nautilus, 20(3): 34; 20(4):
40-44; 20(5): 52-55.
Hobbs, H.H., III. 1992. Caves and springs. In: Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States:
aquatic communities. New York: John Wiley: 59–131.
Hubbs, C. 1995. Springs and spring runs as unique aquatic systems. Copeia. 1995: 989–991.
McGregor, S.W., P.E. ONeil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia:Unionidae) fauna in the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11:215–238.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
Neves, R.J.; A.E. Bogan, et al. 1997. Status of aquatic mollusks in the Southeastern United
States: a downward spiral of diversity. In: Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern perspective.
Spec. Publ. 1. Decatur, GA: Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and
Communications.
Tennessee Wildlife Action Plan. 2005. Available at:
http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/tennessee.html . Last accessed June 9, 2009.
Thompson, F.G. 1984. North American freshwater snail genera of the hydrobiid subfamily
Lithoglyphinae. Malacologia, 25(1): 109-142.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 337

 Scientific Name:
Elimia alabamensis
Common Name:
Mud Elimia
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The extant range of the Mud Elimia covers less than 100 square km (less than about 40 square
miles) in Alabama (NatureServe 2008). This snail is endemic to the middle reaches of the Coosa
River and adjunct tributaries (Mirarchi 2004).
Habitat:
The Mud Elimia occurs in flowing water environments (Mirarchi 2004).
Populations:
There are fewer than five extant populations of Mud Elimia, and possibly only one (Bogan and
Pierson 1993, Mirarchi 2004, NatureServe 2008). The only recent record of this species is from
a single site on the Coosa below Mitchell Dam (Bogan and Pierson 1993). Goodrich (1936)
reported this species in the Coosa from Ft. William Shoals in Talladega County to Lonigan Shoals
in St. Clair County, and from Yellowleaf Creek in Shelby County. Burch (1989) reports this
species from middle sections of the Coosa from creeks in Talladega County. Dillon (1989) cites
occurrences at the tailwaters of Mitchell Dam in Chilton County. Total population size of this
species is unknown.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Mud Elimia is very rapidly declining to declining (decline of
10-70 percent) in the short-term, and that this species has experienced a large to moderate longterm decline of 25-90 percent.
Status:
The Mud Elimia is ranked by NatureServe (2008) as critically imperiled, and by the IUCN as
vulnerable. It is on the Alabama Freshwater Snail Watch List as a species of moderate
conservation concern. The moderate ranking is due to an insufficiency of data on distribution. The
distribution of this species is now "extremely contracted" (NatureServe 2008). The species has
only been recorded recently from a single site (Bogan and Pierson 1993). The Mud Elimia is a
former Candidate for ESA protection (FWS 1994).
Habitat destruction:
The range of the Mud Elimia is now severely constricted and this species has only been recently
reported from a single site. As such, this species is particularly vulnerable to further habitat
degradation. Aquatic habitats on the Coosa have been lost and degraded by impoundment,
pollution, and siltation (NatureServe 2008). A variety of land uses and activities threaten the Mud
Elimia's habitat, including sedimentation and nutrient enrichment caused by gravel mining,
feedlots, cropland erosion, agriculture, silviculture, mining, and urbanization (ADCNR 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Mud Elimia. It is on the Alabama
Freshwater Snail Watch List but this does not convey legal protection. The Mud Elimia was
formerly a Candidate for ESA protection (FWS 1994).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 338

 Other factors:
The Mud Elimia is threatened by a variety of other factors. Low population size and restricted
range make this species vulnerable to stochastic genetic and environmental events, such as
droughts and flooding. Any factor which decreases water quality threatens this species.
References:
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2005. Alabama’s Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Available at: www.outdooralabama.com/outdooralabama/Strategy.pdf . Last accessed June 15, 2009.
Bogan, A.E. and J. M. Pierson. 1993. Survey of the aquatic gastropods of the Coosa River basin,
Alabama: 1992. Final report submitted in February, 1993 to Alabama Natural Heritage Program,
Montgomery Alabama, Contract Number 1923. 10 pp.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Dillon, R.T., Jr. 1989. Karyotypic evolution in pleurocerid snails. I. Genomic DNA estimated by
flow cytometry. Malacologia, 31(1): 197-203.
Goodrich, C. 1936. Goniobasis of the Coosa River, Alabama. University of Michigan Museum
of Zoology, Miscellaneous Publications, 31: 1-60.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal
Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. November 15, 1994.
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/1994/November/Day-15/pr-42.html

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 339

 Scientific Name:
Elimia ampla
Common Name:
Ample Elimia
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
CR - Critically endangered

Range:
The range of the Ample Elimia is less than 100 square km (less than about 40 square miles) in
Alabama where it is restricted to the main channel of the Cahaba River (Stein 1976). There are
historical records for this species from Centerville and Lily Shoals in Bibb County (Goodrich
1941, Burch 1989). This mussel is currently extant between Centreville and Booth Ford in Shelby
County (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Habitat:
This muscle occurs in shoals with moderate to fast current (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are from 1-5 populations of Ample Elimia. Bogan and
Pierson (1993) detected this species at nine sites, not all of which may represent separate
breeding occurences (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Total population size for this species is estimated at fewer than 1000 individuals. Stein (1976)
reported that this species has never been detected in large numbers. Pierson (1997 pers. comm.
cited in NatureServe 2008) described the Ample Elimia as "very rare," with only one occurrence
being reported in the most recent surveys.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) states that the Ample Elimia is declining rapidly (decline of 30-50 percent)
throughout its range.
Status:
The Ample Elimia is now restricted to one section of the Cahaba River where it is considered
uncommon even where detected. NatureServe (2008) ranks this snail as critically imperiled. The
IUCN classifies the Ample Elimia as critically endangered. It is an Alabama Species of Greatest
Conservation Need.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) states that the Ample Elimia is very threatened throughout its range due to
sedimentation, siltation, and impoundments. Sedimentation threatens the Ample Elimia because it
causes shell erosion, decreases the survival of eggs, and inhibits the growth of algae on which
snails depend for food (Hart and Fuller 1974, Neves et al. 1997, Herrig and Shute 2002). This
snail is vulnerable to extinction because of habitat loss and alteration, and barriers to dispersal
created by dams (Herrig and Shute 2002). The Elimia’s habitat is also threatened by spring
modification and diversion, which alters the aquatic conditions to which springsnails are adapted,
and by groundwater withdrawal which negatively affects the quantity and quality of spring water
and artificially creates drought-like conditions (Hobbs 1992, Hubbs 1995, Herrig and Shute
2002). Agricultural activities and livestock grazing also potentially threaten the Ample Elimia, as
springsnails are particularly vulnerable to decreased water quality and are known to be negatively

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 340

 impacted by grazing (Herrig and Shute 2002). The Alabama Dept. of Conservation and Natural
Resources. (2008) reports that the state's aquatic snails are threatened by habitat degradation, and
identifies this snail as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need
(http://www.outdooralabama.com/research-mgmt/cwcs/Chapter1.pdf Accessed February 1, 2010).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Ample Elimia, and no occurrences are
appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). The Ample Elimia is an Alabama
Species of Greatest Conservation Need, but this does not provide the snail with any regulatory
protection.
Other factors:
Several other factors threaten the Ample Elimia including pollution and invasive species. Aquatic
habitats in southern forests are threatened by immediate and persistent impacts of pollution from
petroleum spills, urban and agricultural pesticides, and chemical, manufacturing, and wood product
wastes (Abell et al. 2000, Hart and Fuller 1974, Herrig and Shute 2002). Native mollusk species
such as the Ample Elimia are also threatened by competition and predation from invasive species
such as zebra mussels (Hart and Fuller 1974, Herrig and Shute 2002).
References:
Abell, Robin A.; Olson, David M.; Dinerstein, Eric [and others]. 2000. Freshwater ecoregions of
North America: a conservation assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. 319 p.
Alabama Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2008. Alabama's Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. http://www.outdooralabama.com/researchmgmt/cwcs/Chapter1.pdf Last accessed January 4, 2009.
Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Pierson. 1993. Survey of the aquatic gastropods of the Cahaba River Basin,
Alabama: 1992. Final report submitted in October 1993 to Alabama Natural Heritage Program,
Montgomery, Alabama, Contract Number 1922. 20 pp.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Goodrich, C. 1941. Distribution of the gastropods of the Cahaba River, Alabama. Occasional
Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 428: 1-30.
Hart, C.W., Jr.; and S.L.H. Fuller. 1974. Pollution ecology of freshwater invertebrates. New
York: Academic Press. 312 p.
Herrig, J. and P. Shute. 2002. Chapter 23: aquatic animals and their habitats. Southern Region,
USDA Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority. 45 pp. In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G.,
eds. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 pp. Available at:
www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_23e.pdf Last accessed June 8, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 341

 Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
Neves, R. J., A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams, S. A. Ahlstedt, and P. W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of
aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: A downward spiral of diversity. In Aquatic
Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. G. W. Benz, and D. E. Collins (eds.). Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design & Communications, Decatur,
GA, p. 43-86.
Stein, C.B. 1976. Gastropods. pp. 21-41. In: H. Boschung, (ed.) Endangered and threatened
species of Alabama. Bulletin Alabama Museum of Natural History No. 2.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 342

 Scientific Name:
Elimia annettae
Common Name:
Lilyshoals Elimia
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
CR - Critically endangered

Range:
The extant range of the Lilyshoals Elimia consists of less than 100 square km in Alabama
(NatureServe 2008). Goodrich (1941) describes this species' range as the transition zone of the
Cahaba River, from Lily Shoals to Pratt's Ferry. Stein (1976) and Burch (1989) report that this
snail is restricted to the main stem of the Cahaba River in Bibb County. Mirarchi et al. (2004)
describe this species' distribution as the mainstem of the Cahaba from Centreville to the
Bibb/Shelby County line, the lower Little Cahaba, and the mouth of Six Mile Creek (Bogan and
Pierson 1993).
Habitat:
Goodrich (1941) reports that this snail appears to prefer areas of moderate current. Mirarchi
(2004) states that this snail occurs in shoal habitats with fast to moderate current (Mirarchi 2004).
Populations:
Bogan and Pierson (1993) identified this species at six sites, but each of these may not represent
separate occurrences after populations are delineated (NatureServe 2008). Pierson (1997 pers.
comm. cited in NatureServe 2008) reported two to three occurrences for this species in recent
surveys. Total population size for this species is estimated at fewer than 1000 individuals
(NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is declining in the short-term (decline of 10-30
percent) and moderately declining (decline of 25 - 50 percent) in the long-term.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Lilyshoals Elimia as critically imperiled. The IUCN ranks this
species as critically endangered. Stein (1976) classifies this species as endangered. It is a Priority
2 Species of High Conservation Concern in Alabama. There is some uncertainty concerning the
taxonomic delineation of this species (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
The limited distribution of the Lilyshoals Elimia makes this species particularly vulnerable to habitat
degradation. Aquatic habitats in the Cahaba and Little Cahaba have been degraded by excessive
sedimentation and eutrophication (Hartfield 1994). Sedimentation threatens the Lilyshoals Elimia
because it causes shell erosion, decreases the survival of eggs, and inhibits the growth of algae on which
snails depend for food (Hart and Fuller 1974, Neves et al. 1997, Herrig and Shute 2002). This species is
threatened by poor water quality in the Cahaba River due to high nutrient inputs (McGregor et al. 2000).
The Elimia’s habitat is also threatened by spring modification and diversion, which alters the aquatic
conditions to which springsnails are adapted, and by groundwater withdrawal which negatively affects
the quantity and quality of spring water and artificially creates drought-like conditions (Hobbs 1992,
Hubbs 1995, Herrig and Shute 2002). Agricultural activities and livestock grazing also potentially
threaten the Lilyshoals Elimia, as springsnails are particularly vulnerable to decreased water quality and
are known to be negatively impacted by grazing (Herrig and Shute 2002). FWS (2007) states that

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 343

 physical alteration of the Cahaba River and water quality degradation present significant challenges to
the survival of aquatic biota, citing dams, channelization, dredging, and coal mining as specific threats.
Physical alterations to the river have degraded substrates and have led to temperature fluctuations,
changes in sediment transport, water depth, and variable stream velocity, and variable dissolved oxygen
and pH (FWS 2007). The Cahaba River is also threatened by rapid urbanization and commercial
development in Jefferson, Shelby and St. Clair Counties (Ibid.). FWS (2007) states that rampant
development of Jefferson and Shelby Counties, and decades of coal mining have degraded river water
quality and hydrologic flows that continue to place stress on present-day populations of freshwater
mollusks in the Cahaba River.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the Lilyshoals Elimia, and no
occurrences are appropriately protected (NatureServe 2008). Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that this
snail is listed as endangered in Alabama, citing Stein 1976, but the Alabama Natural Heritage
Program Tracking List (Available at : www.alnhp.org/track_2008.pdf . Last accessed June 30,
2009) does not indicate that this species has any protective status in Alabama.
Other factors:
Pollution threatens the Cahaba Pebblesnail (NatureServe 2008). The Cahaba River receives domestic
and industrial wastewaters, and there are at least 103 industrial discharge permits in the Cahaba Basin,
which release a variety of toxic metals, chemicals and other substances (FWS 2007). There are six
municipal wastewater treatment plants in the upper basin with a combined discharge of 19 million
gallons a day. River testing has revealed high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, heavy metals, low
dissolved oxygen, organic enrichment, siltation, and chemical spills in the upper basin. Water quality is
degraded by historic and current coal mine drainage. FWS (2007) states: “Characterization of Cahaba
River water quality by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Howard et al. 2002) documented the
following problems in the basin:
• Excessive sedimentation and nutrient enrichment are affecting watershed biology;
• A decline in pollution-sensitive fish species with a concomitant increase in pollution-tolerant fish
species;
• A prominence of the filamentous green algae Cladophora, which is often associated with nutrient
enrichment and nuisance conditions;
• Total phosphorus and total nitrogen ranged from 12 to 960 ppb and 230 to 21,094 ppb, respectively (12
ppb TP and 230 ppb TN considered adequate);
• Excessive sediments have degraded and altered benthic community and species diversity in portions of
the river;
• Dramatic increase in “disturbed land” in the basin since 1990; and
• High incidence of NPDES permit violations for nutrient or nutrient related parameters over the last
several years.”
References:
Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Pierson. 1993. Survey of the aquatic gastropods of the Cahaba River Basin,
Alabama: 1992. Final report submitted in October 1993 to Alabama Natural Heritage Program,
day populations of freshwater mollusks in the Cahaba River.Montgomery, Alabama, Contract Number
1922. 20 pp.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 344

 Goodrich, C. 1941. Distribution of the gastropods of the Cahaba River, Alabama. Occasional
Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 428: 1-30.
Goodrich, C. 1941. Two new species of Goniobasis. Occasional Papers of the Museum of
Zoology, University of Michigan, 426: 1-4.
Hart, C.W., Jr.; and S.L.H. Fuller. 1974. Pollution ecology of freshwater invertebrates. New
York: Academic Press. 312 p.
Hartfield, Paul. 1994. Status review summary of seven Mobile River Basin aquatic snails.
USFWS, Jackson, MS. 11 pp.
Herrig, J. and P. Shute. 2002. Chapter 23: aquatic animals and their habitats. Southern Region,
USDA Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority. 45 pp. In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G.,
eds. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 pp. Available at:
www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_23e.pdf Last accessed June 8, 2009.
Hobbs, H.H., III. 1992. Caves and springs. In: Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States:
aquatic communities. New York: John Wiley: 59–131.
Hubbs, C. 1995. Springs and spring runs as unique aquatic systems. Copeia. 1995: 989–991.
McGregor, S.W., P.E. ONeil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia:Unionidae) fauna in the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11:215–238.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
Neves, R.J.; A.E. Bogan, et al. 1997. Status of aquatic mollusks in the Southeastern United
States: a downward spiral of diversity. In: Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern perspective.
Spec. Publ. 1. Decatur, GA: Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and
Communications.
Stein, C.B. 1976. Gastropods. pp. 21-41. In: H. Boschung, (ed.) Endangered and threatened
species of Alabama. Bulletin Alabama Museum of Natural History No. 2.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 345

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Habitat
Management Plan. February 2007. Available online at:
www.fws.gov/cahabariver/pdf/Final%20Draft%20Cahaba%20River%20HMP
Last accessed June 12, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 346

 Scientific Name:
Elimia arachnoidea
Common Name:
Spider Elimia
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The range of the Spider Elimia encompasses 250-1000 square km in east Tennessee and
southwest Virginia. This snail is known from Claiborne County, Tennessee (Burch 1989). Garner
(in NatureServe 2008) detected the Spider Elilmia in 21 streams that are tributaries to the
Tennessee River in eastern TN, but not all of these populations were viable. Dillon and Robinson
(2007) detected the Spider Elilmia in a tributary to the Clinch River in TN near the Virginia
border. In southwest Virginia, Dillon and Robinson (2007) found this snail at 13 sites in Lee and
Wise counties, including tributaries of the Powell River (NatureServe 2008). Historical records
of the species in tributaries of the Holston River were not confirmed.
Habitat:
The Spider Elimia occurs in small streams.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) crudely estimates that there are between 6-80 populations of the Spider
Elimia. Overall population size is unknown.
Population Trends:
The Spider Elimia has experienced wide population decline, has been extirpated from much of its
former habitat, and some remaining populations are not viable (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Spider Elimia is critically imperiled in Virginia and imperiled in Tennessee. This snail still
occurs in "a few streams" in Tennessee and is rare in southwest Virginia, where it is state listed as
endangered (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
The Spider Elimia is threatened by siltation, pollution, and run-off (Dillon and Robinson 2007).
Gordon (1993) reports that "a lot of former habitat has been catastrophically impacted." Surface
coal mining is prevalent in east Tennessee and southwest Virginia and is a common source of
water pollution in the region. Any activity that negatively affects water quality is likely
detrimental for this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms in place to protect the Spider Elimia. It is state listed
as endangered in Virginia, but this designation does not convey substantial regulatory protection.
Other factors:
Any factor which reduces water quality threatens the Spider Elimia.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 347

 References:
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Dillon, R.T., Jr. and J.D. Robinson. 2007. The Goniobasis ("Elimia") of southwest Virginia, I.
Population genetic survey. Final Report (Part I) to the Virginia Division of Game and Inland
Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia. 25 pp.
Goodrich, C. 1935. Studies of the gastropod family Pleuroceridae-IV. Occasional Papers of the
Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 311: 1-11.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 348

 Scientific Name:
Elimia bellacrenata
Common Name:
Princess Elimia
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The extant range of the Princess Elimia consists of less than 100 square km in Alabama
(NatureServe 2008). This snail is endemic to tributaries of the Cahaba River in Bibb, Shelby, and
Tuscaloosa Counties (Goodrich 1941, Burch 1989, Mirarchi 2004). Goodrich (1941)
documented this species at Limestone Spring, Davis Creek, Clear Creek, and Spring Creek in
Shelby County, at Miller and Woodstock Springs in Bibb County, and at Cahaba River tributaries
in Tuscaloosa County. This species has only been detected recently at Shoal Creek in Shelby
County (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Habitat:
This snail occurs in springs and small streams (Mirarchi 2004).
Populations:
There is only one known extant population of Princess Elimia (NatureServe 2008). Genetic
samples taken by Campbell and Harris (2006) in the Upper Little Cahaba system upstream from
Montevallo could increase the known occurrences of this species. Total population size is
unknown.
Population Trends:
The Princess Elimia is very rapidly to rapidly declining (decline of 30-70 percent) in the shortterm, and has experienced a large to substantial long-term decline of 50-90 percent (NatureServe
2008).
Status:
The most recent survey of the Cahaba River detected only one population of Princess Elimia
(Mirarchi et al. 2004). NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled. It is a
Priority 1 Species of Highest Conservation Concern in Alabama.
Habitat destruction:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) report that the single known extant site for this species is degraded by
heavy algal growth, which suggests nutrient pollution. This snail is extremely vulnerable to habitat
degradation because of its existence at only a single location. Aquatic habitats in the Cahaba have
been degraded by excessive sedimentation and eutrophication (Hartfield 1994). This species is
threatened by poor water quality in the Cahaba River due to high nutrient inputs (McGregor et al.
2000). FWS (2007) states that physical alteration of the Cahaba River and water quality
degradation present significant challenges to the survival of aquatic biota, citing dams,
channelization, dredging, and coal mining as specific threats. Physical alterations to the river have
degraded substrates and have led to temperature fluctuations, changes in sediment transport, water
depth, and variable stream velocity, and variable dissolved oxygen and pH (FWS 2007). The
Cahaba River is also threatened by rapid urbanization and commercial development (Ibid.).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 349

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Princess Elimia. This snail is on the
Alabama Natural Heritage Program Tracking List, but this does not confer regulatory protection.
Other factors:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that the Princess Elimia is vulnerable to extinction due to limited
distribution, specialized habitat requirements, and declining population trend. Because this species
is currently known from only a single population, it is vulnerable to stochastic genetic and
environmental events. This species is also significantly threatened by water pollution.
References:
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Campbell, D. and P. Harris. 2006. Report on molecular systematics of poorly-known freshwater
mollusks of Alabama. Report to the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Montgomery, Alabama. 34 pp.
Goodrich, C. 1941. Distribution of the gastropods of the Cahaba River, Alabama. Occasional
Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 428: 1-30.
Goodrich, C. 1941. Pleuroceridae of the small streams of the Alabama River system. Occasional
Papers of the University of Zoology, University of Michigan, 427: 1-10.
Hartfield, Paul. 1994. Status review summary of seven Mobile River Basin aquatic snails.
USFWS, Jackson, MS. 11 pp.
McGregor, S.W., P.E. ONeil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia:Unionidae) fauna in the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11:215–238.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Habitat
Management Plan. February 2007. Available online at:
www.fws.gov/cahabariver/pdf/Final%20Draft%20Cahaba%20River%20HMP
Last accessed June 12, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 350

 Scientific Name:
Elimia bellula
Common Name:
Walnut Elimia
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of the Walnut Elimia is less than 100 square km in the middle reaches of the Coosa
River and Yellowleaf and Choccolocco Creeks in Alabama (Burch 1989, Bogan and Pierson
1993, Mirarchi 2004). It is no longer extant in the mainstem of the Coosa (C. Lydeard, University
of Alabama, pers. comm., 2000 cited in NatureServe 2008). Goodrich (1936) reported this
species in the Coosa River from Wetumpka to Fitz's Ferry.
Habitat:
This snail occurs in lotic habitats (Mirarchi 2004).
Populations:
There are two extant populations of this snail, and total population size is unknown (NatureServe
2008).
Population Trends:
This snail has experienced a large to moderate long-term decline of 25-90 percent (NatureServe
2008). Populations in the mainstem of the Coosa have been extirpated (Lydeard 2000 in
NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This snail is critically imperiled (G1S1) (NatureServe 2008). It is categorized as vulnerable by the
IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
This snail is no longer extant in the mainstem of the Coosa, likely due to habitat degradation. The
remaining populations are extremely vulnerable to habitat degradation, as they occur in two creeks
in a river system that is heavily impacted by impoundments and also degraded by pollution and
siltation from a variety of activities including gravel mining, feedlots, cropland erosion,
agriculture, silviculture, mining, and urbanization (ADCNR 2005, NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect this species.
References:
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2005. Alabama’s Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Available at: www.outdooralabama.com/outdooralabama/Strategy.pdf . Last accessed June 15, 2009.
Bogan, A.E. and J. M. Pierson. 1993. Survey of the aquatic gastropods of the Coosa River basin,
Alabama: 1992. Final report submitted in February, 1993 to Alabama Natural Heritage Program,
Montgomery Alabama, Contract Number 1923. 10 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 351

 Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Goodrich, C. 1936. Goniobasis of the Coosa River, Alabama. University of Michigan Museum
of Zoology, Miscellaneous Publications, 31: 1-60.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 352

 Scientific Name:
Elimia chiltonensis
Common Name:
Prune Elimia
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The range of the Prune Elimia consists of 250-1000 square km (about 100-400 square miles) in
Alabama where it is endemic to tributaries of the Coosa River (Mirarchi 2004). Burch (1989)
reports this species from Weguska Creek in Coosa County and from Waxahatchee Creek and
three of its tributaries in Chilton and Shelby Counties. This snail was originally described from
Warsan Creek in Chilton County (Goodrich 1941). Bogan and Pierson (1993) report that this
species occurs in six Coosa River tributaries.
Habitat:
The Prune Elimia uses lotic habitats (Mirarchi 2004).
Populations:
There are six extant occurrences of Prune Elimia, in six different tributaries of the Coosa River
(Bogan and Pierson 1993).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Prune Elimia is stable in the short-term (10 percent
fluctuation) and relatively stable (25 percent change) in the long-term.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Prune Elimia as imperiled. This snail is on the Alabama Natural
Heritage Program Tracking List.
Habitat destruction:
Habitats for aquatic species in the Coosa River basin have been degraded by a variety of human
activities and are heavily impacted by impoundments, water pollution, and siltation (NatureServe
2008). Rare aquatic snails in the Coosa Basin including the Prune Elimia are threatened by
sedimentation and nutrient enrichment caused by gravel mining, feedlots, cropland erosion,
agriculture, silviculture, mining, and urbanization (ADCNR 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Prune Elimia. This species is on the
Alabama Natural Heritage Program Tracking List, but this does not confer regulatory protection.
Other factors:
The Prune Elimia is threatened by water quality degradation and invasive species. Aquatic habitats
in the Coosa basin are classified as impaired due to organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen
concentration, altered pH, and altered flow regimes due to impoundment, industrial discharges, and
urban and rural non-point source pollution (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources 2005). Non-native crayfish also pose a threat to native aquatic species in the Coosa
basin (ADCNR 2005).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 353

 References:
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2005. Alabama’s Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Available at: www.outdooralabama.com/outdooralabama/Strategy.pdf . Last accessed June 15, 2009.
Bogan, A.E. and J. M. Pierson. 1993. Survey of the aquatic gastropods of the Coosa River basin,
Alabama: 1992. Final report submitted in February, 1993 to Alabama Natural Heritage Program,
Montgomery Alabama, Contract Number 1923. 10 pp.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Goodrich, C. 1941. Two new species of Goniobasis. Occasional Papers of the Museum of
Zoology, University of Michigan, 426: 1-4.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 354

 Scientific Name:
Elimia cochliaris
Common Name:
Cockle Elimia
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The range of the Cockle Elimia consists of less than 100 square km (less than about 40 square
miles) in central Alabama (NatureServe 2008). Historically this species occurred in springs and
springbrooks of the Little Cahaba River in Bibb, Jefferson, and Tuscaloosa counties (Goodrich
1941). Bogan and Pierson (1993) report that this snail is extant at only one to two localities in
Bibb County. Mirarchi et al. (2004) report that it is extant at a single small spring that is a
tributary to the Little Cahaba.
Habitat:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) describe this snail's habitat as springs and small spring-fed streams.
Populations:
There are only one to two extant populations of Cockle Elimia. This snail is known from a spring
that is a tributary to the Little Cahaba (Bogan and Pierson 1993, Mirarchi et al. 2004, Campbell
and Harris 2006), and potentially from another site where it is pending confirmation (NatureServe
2008). Total population size is unknown but likely low.
Population Trends:
The Cockle Elimia has experienced a very large long-term decline of over 90 percent, and is also
severely declining in the short-term (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Cockle Elimia as critically imperiled meaning it is at very high risk
of extinction throughout its range. This snail is confirmed to be extant at only a single site. It is a
Priority 1 Species of Highest Conservation Concern in Alabama.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are ongoing threats to the Cockle Elimia's habitat.This snail
occurs at only one to two sites and is thus severely vulnerable to habitat degradation. NatureServe
(2008) reports that habitat in the Cahaba River is vulnerable to development impacts. Herrig and
Shute (2002) and Buckner et al. (2002) describe multiple threats to aquatic species' habitat in the
Cahaba Basin including development, agriculture, recreation, spring development and diversion,
logging, and mining. This species is also threatened by poor water quality in the Cahaba River due
to high nutrient inputs (McGregor et al. 2000). FWS (2007) states that physical alteration of the
Cahaba River and water quality degradation present significant challenges to the survival of aquatic
biota, citing dams, channelization, dredging, and coal mining as specific threats. Physical
alterations to the river have degraded substrates and have led to temperature fluctuations, changes
in sediment transport, water depth, and variable stream velocity, and variable dissolved oxygen and
pH (FWS 2007). The Cahaba River is also threatened by rapid urbanization and commercial
development in Jefferson, Shelby and St. Clair Counties (Ibid.). FWS (2007) states that rampant
development of Jefferson and Shelby Counties, and decades of coal mining have degraded river
water quality and hydrologic flows that continue to place stress on present-day populations of
freshwater mollusks in the Cahaba River.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 355

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Cockle Elimia, and no occurrences are
appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). This species is on the Alabama Natural
Heritage Program Tracking List, but this does not confer regulatory protection.
Other factors:
Several other factors threaten the Cockle Elimia. This species is vulnerable to random extirpation
events due to limited dispersal capability, restricted range, and low population number
(NatureServe 2008). Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that this species is vulnerable to extinction due to
extremely limited distribution, specialized habitat requirements, and declining population trend.
Water quality in the Cahaba Basin has been degraded, and continues to be degraded, by a variety of
factors (Herrig and Shute 2002, Buckner et al. 2002). Any factor which decreases water quality
threatens the survival of the remaining 1-2 population(s) of Cockle Elimia.
References:
Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Pierson. 1993. Survey of the aquatic gastropods of the Cahaba River Basin,
Alabama: 1992. Final report submitted in October 1993 to Alabama Natural Heritage Program,
Montgomery, Alabama, Contract Number 1922. 20 pp.
Buckner, M.M., W. Smith, and J.A. Takats. 2002. Tennessee, Cumberland, and Mobile River
Basins at Risk. Nashville, TN. 52 pp.
Campbell, D. and P. Harris. 2006. Report on molecular systematics of poorly-known freshwater
mollusks of Alabama. Report to the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Montgomery, Alabama. 34 pp.
Goodrich, C. 1941. Distribution of the gastropods of the Cahaba River, Alabama. Occasional
Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 428: 1-30.
Goodrich, C. 1941. Pleuroceridae of the small streams of the Alabama River system. Occasional
Papers of the University of Zoology, University of Michigan, 427: 1-10.
Herrig, J. and P. Shute. 2002. Chapter 23: aquatic animals and their habitats. Southern Region,
USDA Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority. 45 pp. In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G.,
eds. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 pp. Available at:
www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_23e.pdf Last accessed June 8, 2009.
McGregor, S.W., P.E. ONeil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia:Unionidae) fauna in the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11:215–238.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 356

 Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Habitat
Management Plan. February 2007. Available online at:
www.fws.gov/cahabariver/pdf/Final%20Draft%20Cahaba%20River%20HMP
Last accessed June 12, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 357

 Scientific Name:
Elimia cylindracea
Common Name:
Cylinder Elimia
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The current range of the Cylinder Elimia consists of less than 100 square km (less than about 40
square miles) in Alabama and Mississippi (NatureServe 2008). Historically this species was
widespread in the Tombigbee River system in Alabama (Mirarchi 2004). Goodrich (1936) also
reported this species from the Black Warrior River. This snail was considered to be possibly
extinct, but was detected in Noxubee Creek, Noxubee County, Mississippi (Lydeard et al. 1997)
and in the Sucarnoochee River, both tributaries of the Tombigbee (McGregor et al. 1999). This
snail is also known from Clay, Lowndes, and Oktibbeha counties in Mississippi (NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
Mirarchi (2004) reports that this snail occurs on rock ledges, and is generally found in areas with
at least some current.
Populations:
There are two confirmed extant populations of Cylinder Elimia-- Noxubee Creek (Lydeard et al.
1997) and the Sucarnoochee River (McGregor et al. 1999), and possibly other extant populations.
Total population size is unknown but likely low.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Cylinder Elimia is rapidly declining in the short term (decline
of 30-50 percent) and that it has experienced a very large long-term decline of 75-90 percent.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Cylinder Elimia as imperiled in Alabama and as not ranked in
Mississippi. This species was previously thought to be extinct and is now known from only a few
populations.
Habitat destruction:
Because of its limited range and limited mobility, this snail is very vulnerable to habitat loss and
degradation. The Cylinder Elimia was previously thought to be extirpated due to habitat
destruction of the Tombigbee River (NatureServe 2008). Because the range of this snail is now
severely restricted, any further impacts to its habitat could result in extirpation. This snail is
threatened by habitat impacts from impoundments and sedimentation, which degrade water quality
and isolate populations (Herrig and Shute 2002). Sedimentation inhibits the growth of algae on
which snails depend for food (Neves et al. 1997), causes the erosion of snail shells, and
negatively affects the survival of snail eggs (Hart and Fuller 1974). Sedimentation of snail habitat
results from a variety of sources and land-use activities (Neves et al. 1997). The Alabama Rivers
Alliance (1999) reports that aquatic species in the Tombigbee watershed, including the Cylinder
Elimia, are threatened by sedimentation, sand and gravel mining, impoundment, and pollution from
domestic sewage and agricultural and animal feedlot runoff.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 358

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Cylinder Elimia. It does not have any
state or federal protective status.
Other factors:
The Cylinder Elimia is threatened by any factor which degrades water quality. Chronic pollution
and pollution events such as chemical spills threaten this species (Hart and Fuller 1974, Neves et
al. 1997, Herrig and Shute 2002). Exotic species such as zebra mussels also potentially threaten
the Cylinder Elimia (Hart and Fuller 1974, Herrig and Shute 2002).
References:
Alabama Rivers Alliance. 1999. The State of Alabama’s Rivers: A Blueprint for the Conservation
Of Alabama’s Freshwater River Ecosystems Through the 21st Century. Available at:
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/auxiliary/BC/PAGESL1/EnvFacts/EnvFactPagesL2/EnvFactsWATER/
EnvFactsWater_Texts/stofALRvrs4.doc Last accessed Jan. 7, 2010.
Goodrich, C. 1936. Goniobasis of the Coosa River, Alabama. University of Michigan Museum
of Zoology, Miscellaneous Publications, 31: 1-60.
Hart, C.W., Jr.; and S.L.H. Fuller. 1974. Pollution ecology of freshwater invertebrates. New
York: Academic Press. 312 p.
Herrig, J. and P. Shute. 2002. Chapter 23: aquatic animals and their habitats. Southern Region,
USDA Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority. 45 pp. In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G.,
eds. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 pp. Available at:
www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_23e.pdf Last accessed June 8, 2009.
Lydeard, C., W. E. Holznagle, J. Garner, P. Hartfield, and J. M. Pierson. 1997. A Molecular
phylogeny of Mobile River drainage basin pleurocerid snails (Caenogastropoda: Cerithioidea).
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 7(1):117-128.
McGregor, S.W., T.E. Shepard, T.D. Richardson, and J.F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1999. A survey of the
primary tributaries of the Alabama and Lower Tombigbee rivers for freshwater mussels, snails,
and crayfish. Geological Survey of Alabama, Circular 196. 29 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
Neves, R. J., A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams, S. A. Ahlstedt, and P. W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of
aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: A downward spiral of diversity. In Aquatic
Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. G. W. Benz, and D. E. Collins (eds.). Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design & Communications, Decatur,
GA, p. 43-86.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 359

 Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 360

Scientific Name:
Elimia lachryma
Common Name:
Nodulose Coosa River Snail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
EX - Extinct

Range:
There are two common names for this snail, the Teardrop Elimia and the Nodulose Coosa River
Snail. The extant range of this species is less than 100 square km in Alabama (NatureServe 2008).
Historically this species occurred in the Coosa River from Hall's Island in Talladega County to
Ten Acre Island in Etowah County (Goodrich 1936, Mirarchi 2004). Burch (1989) describes this
species' distribution as from Gilbert's Ferry in Etowah County to near Childersburg in Talladega
County. Today this species only occurs at a single location below Lake Logan Martin
(NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There is only one extant population of this snail. This species was considered to be extinct until a
population was rediscovered below Lake Logan Martin in 2004 (NatureServe 2008). Total
population size is unknown but likely low.
Population Trends:
This species has undergone a large long-term decline of over 90 percent, with only one population
remaining (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Nodulose Coosa River Snail as critically imperiled. It is classified
as extinct by the IUCN, but this needs to be updated, as a population was rediscovered in 2004. It
is on the Alabama Natural Heritage Program Tracking List.
Habitat destruction:
All of the former habitat of the Nodulose Coosa River Snail has been impounded (NatureServe
2008). This species now persists in a single population below Lake Logan Martin. Because the
range of this species is so severely constricted, it is highly vulnerable to any further habitat
degradation. Aquatic snails are vulnerable to siltation, sedimentation, and other habitat degradation
from a variety of human activities (Neves et al. 1997, Herrig and Shute 2002). Threats to
mollusks in the Coosa are well documented (ADCNR 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect this snail. This species is on the Alabama
Natural Heritage Program Tracking List, but this does not provide any regulatory protection.
Other factors:
Because the Nodulose Coosa River Snail now exists in only a single population, it is very
vulnerable to stochastic genetic and environmental events. This snail is also threatened by any
factor which degrades water quality.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 361

 References:
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2005. Alabama’s Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Available at: www.outdooralabama.com/outdooralabama/Strategy.pdf . Last accessed Jan. 15, 2010.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Goodrich, C. 1936. Goniobasis of the Coosa River, Alabama. University of Michigan Museum
of Zoology, Miscellaneous Publications, 31: 1-60.
Herrig, J. and P. Shute. 2002. Chapter 23: aquatic animals and their habitats. Southern Region,
USDA Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority. 45 pp. In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G.,
eds. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 pp. Available at:
www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_23e.pdf Last accessed June 8, 2009.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
Neves, R. J., A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams, S. A. Ahlstedt, and P. W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of
aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: A downward spiral of diversity. In Aquatic
Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. G. W. Benz, and D. E. Collins (eds.). Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design & Communications, Decatur,
GA, p. 43-86.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 362

 Scientific Name:
Elimia melanoides
Common Name:
Black Mudalia
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
CR - Critically endangered

Range:
The range of the Black Mudalia now consists of less than 100 square km (less than about 40
square miles) in Alabama (NatureServe 2008). Historically, this snail occurred in the upper half
of the Black Warrior River drainage, in and above Tuscaloosa (Minton et al. 2003). It now occurs
only in portions of the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River and the Little Warrior River in
Blount and Marshall Counties (Minton et al. 2003; Mirarchi et al. 2004). Before the detection of
these populations, this snail was considered extinct (Turgeon et al. 1998)
Habitat:
Elimia melanoides occurs in shoals and riffles with clean gravel, cobble, or boulder substrate. It
has also been detected on submerged logs (USFWS 2007). Mirarchi et al. (2004) describe this
species habitat as "margins of channels on rocks or vegetation," stating that it appears to be
tolerant of minor sedimentation, but may be sensitive to alterations in hydrologic regime.
Populations:
There are approximately eight known populations of Black Mudalia (P. Johnson, AL DCNR, pers.
comm., November 2006 cited in NatureServe 2008). Minton et al. (2003) reported seven
populations at two disjunct locations. Goodrich (1922) recorded this species from the Black
Warrior River and possibly the Alabama River. The Black Mudalia is currently extant in two
shoals in Gurley Creek in Jefferson County (Pierson, 2006); five localized shoals in an
approximately 30 mile reach of the upper Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River in Blount
County (Minton et al. 2003); two shoals in a one mile reach of the Blackburn Fork of the Little
Warrior River (Clark in litt, 2006 cited in NatureServe 2008), and at a tributary to Blackburn Fork
in Blount County (USFWS 2007). This snail was detected at Sipsey Fork in the Bankhead
National Forest in Winston County in 1985, 1990, 1993, and 2006 (Wendell Haag, U.S. Forest
Service, pers. comm. 2006 cited in NatureServe 2008, Pierson 2006).
Total population size for this species is estimated at 1000-100,000 individuals. In 1922 Goodrich
described this snail as "perhaps a vanishing race" due to its low numbers and small range. Stein
(1976) reported it as possibly extinct, and Turgeon et al. (1998) reported it as presumed extinct.
It was redetected in 1996 (Minton et al., 2003). In 2006, densities of 248 to 616 individuals per
square meter were reported from one shoal at Blackburn Fork (Pierson, 2006). Population
estimates for other locations are not available but may be higher (P. Johnson, AL DCNR, pers.
comm., November 2006 cited in NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Black Mudalia has severely declined in the short term
(decline of greater than 70 percent) and has experienced large decline in the long term (decline of
75-90 percent). This snail has been extirpated from more than 80 percent of its former range
(USFWS 2007).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 363

 Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Black Mudalia as critically imperiled in Alabama. The IUCN
classifies this snail as Critically Endangered. It is a Federal Candidate for listing under the
Endangered Species Act. It is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat destruction and modification is the primary threat to the Black Mudalia (NatureServe
2008). Over 150 miles of this snail’s habitat was degraded and/or destroyed by the construction
of dams on the Black Warrior River in 1940 and 1966, and on the lower Sipsey Fork in 1975
(FWS 2007). Unimpounded areas of this species habitat are threatened by coal mine drainage,
agricultural runoff, and industrial and municipal pollution, including non-point source pollution
from a variety of land-use activities (FWS 2007).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Black Mudalia and no occurences are
appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). It is a Species of Greatest Conservation
Need in Alabama, but this designation does not confer regulatory protection. Stein (1976) reports
this species as Endangered in Alabama, but the Alabama Wildlife Action Plan does not currently
list it as a protected species. It is a Federal Candidate species for listing under the Endangered
Species and is in dire need of ESA protection to prevent its extinction.
Other factors:
The Black Mudalia is threatened by water pollution. In the Black Warrior drainage, this species’
habitat has been polluted by coal mine drainage, industrial and municipal pollution, and agricultural
runoff (FWS 2007). The quality of this snail’s habitat was rated as poor at stations in the Calvert
Prong of the Little Warrior River (USFWS 2007). FWS (2007) states: “Point source discharges
and land surface runoff (nonpoint pollution) can cause nutrification, decreased dissolved oxygen
concentration, increased acidity and conductivity, and other changes in water chemistry that are
likely to seriously impact aquatic snails. Nonpoint source pollution from land surface runoff can
originate from virtually all land use activities, and include sediments, fertilizers, herbicides,
pesticides, animal wastes, septic tank and gray water leakage, and oils and greases. Excessive
sediments can impact riverine snails requiring clean, hard shoal stream and river bottoms, by
making the habitat unsuitable for feeding or reproduction. Excessive nutrient input (from
fertilizers, sewage waste, animal manure, etc.) can result in periodic low dissolved oxygen levels
that are detrimental to aquatic species, including pleurocerid snails.”
References:
Goodrich, C. 1922. The Anculosae of the Alabama River drainage. University of Michigan
Museum of Zoology, Miscellaneous Publication, 7: 1-57.
Minton, R.L., J.T. Garner, and C. Lydeard. 2003. Rediscovery, systematic position, and redescription of "Leptoxis" melanoides (Conrad, 1834) (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Cerithioidea:
Pleuroceridae) from the Black Warrior River, Alabama, U.S.A. Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington, 116(3): 531-541.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 364

 Pierson, J.M. 2006. A report on the habitat and distribution of the rough hornsnail, black mudalia
and interrupted rocksnail in Alabama. Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson,
Mississippi.
Stein, C.B. 1976. Gastropods. pp. 21-41. In: H. Boschung, (ed.) Endangered and threatened
species of Alabama. Bulletin Alabama Museum of Natural History No. 2.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Species assessment and listing priority
assignment form- Elimia melanoides. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi.
unpaginated.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 365

 Scientific Name:
Elimia nassula
Common Name:
Round-rib Elimia
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The extant range of the Round-rib Elimia consists of less than 100 square km in north-central and
northwestern Alabama (NatureServe 2008). Populations have been recently reported from five
springs in four counties: Buzzards Roost and Tuscumbia Springs in Colbert County, Wheeler
Spring in Lawrence County, Big Spring in Madison County, and Cave Spring in Morgan County
(Burch 1989, Burch and Tottenham 1980) but the population at Tuscumbia Springs may be
extirpated (Mirarchi et al. 2004). The historical range of this species was broader, with
documented occurrences at Big Spring and Graham Spring in Huntsville and at Muscle Shoals in
the Tennessee River system (Goodrich 1930).
Habitat:
The Round-rib Elimia occurs in springs and spring branches on gravel and cobble substrates, and
on submerged macrophytes (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Populations:
There are 4-5 extant populations of Round-rib Elimia. This species has been recently reported
from five springs, but may have since been extirpated at one of them (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Round-rib Elimia is declining in the short-term (decline of
10-30 percent), and has undergone moderate long-term decline (25 - 50 percent).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Round-rib Elimia as critically imperiled. It is classified as
vulnerable by the IUCN. This snail is a Priority 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in
Alabama (www.masgc.org/gmrp/plans/AL%20DCNR%20II.pdf).
Habitat destruction:
The Round-rib Elimia has a very restricted range in which it faces imminent threats to its habitat
(Buckner et al. 2002, Mirarchi et al. 2004). Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that the Round-rib Elimia
has low tolerance for silty conditions. One of the springs where this species occurs lies in an
urban setting, which makes it particularly susceptible to habitat disturbance (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
The population at Tuscumbia Spring may have been extirpated by recent "improvements," in which
water was diverted from the channel while substrata were removed with heavy equipment
(Mirarchi et al. 2004). Buckner et al. (2002) state that the Wheeler Lake watershed, where this
species occurs, is threatened by habitat fragmentation and conversion, sedimentation from
residential and commercial development, and degradation from agriculture, forestry, and gravel
mining. This snail is also threatened by habitat loss due to declining water supplies, water
management issues, and groundwater depletion (Buckner et al. 2002).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 366

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the Round-rib Elimia. This species is on the
Alabama Natural Heritage Program Tracking List (www.alnhp.org/pdf/track_2007.pdf) but this
classification does not confer regulatory protection. This snail was a former candidate for protection
under the Endangered Species Act (FWS 1994).
Other factors:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that limited distribution, highly specific habitat requirements, and
declining population trend make this species vulnerable to extinction. Freshwater snails are
sensitive to degradation in water quality (Neves et al. 1997). The Round-rib Elimia is threatened by
point and non-point source pollution, toxins, and contaminants in the Wheeler Lake watershed
(Buckner et al. 2002). Because the watershed where this species occurs is already threatened by
water management issues and groundwater depletion (Buckner et al. 2002), global climate change
threatens this snail because freshwater resources in the Southeastern United States are expected to
become increasingly stressed by drought and warming climate conditions (Karl et al. 2009).
References:
Alabama's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 2008. Chapter 4: Conservation
Actions Proposed for GCN Species and Habitats. Available online:
www.masgc.org/gmrp/plans/AL%20DCNR%20II.pdf . Last accessed July 13, 2009.
Buckner, M.M., W. Smith, and J.A. Takats. 2002. Tennessee, Cumberland, and Mobile River
Basins at Risk. A Biological Assessment and Vision for the World Wildlife Fund’s Southeast
Rivers and Streams Project. Nashville, TN. 52 pp. Available online at:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/sers/publications.html . Last accessed July 13,
2009.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Burch, J.B. and J.L. Tottenham. 1980. North American freshwater snails. Walkerana, 1(3): 81215.
Goodrich, C. 1930. Goniobasis of the vicinity of Muscle Shoals. Occasional Papers of the
Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 209: 1-25.
Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the
United States. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press. Available
online at: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/usimpacts/regional-climate-change-impacts/southeast . Last accessed July 13, 2009.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 367

 Neves, R. J., A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams, S. A. Ahlstedt, and P. W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of
aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: A downward spiral of diversity. In Aquatic
Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. G. W. Benz, and D. E. Collins (eds.). Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design & Communications, Decatur,
GA, p. 43-86.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal
Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. November 15, 1994.
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/1994/November/Day-15/pr-42.html

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 368

 Scientific Name:
Elimia olivula
Common Name:
Caper Elimia
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The extant range of the Caper Elimia consists of less than 100 square km (less than about 40
square miles) in central Alabama (NatureServe 2008). Historically this species was known from
the Alabama River from Claiborne in Monroe County to west of Camden in Wilcox County and to
Selma and north of Tyler in Dallas County, and from the lower Cahaba River near Marion in Perry
County below Falls Line, and from the Tombigbee River (Goodrich 1936, 1941, Burch 1989).
Bogan and Pierson (1993) did not detect this species in the lower Cahaba in Dallas County where
it was previously known to occur. This species is currently known only from a tributary to the
Alabama River in Montgomery County (McGregor et al. 1999) and from the lower Cahaba (C.
Lydeard, University of Alabama, pers. comm., 2000 cited in NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This snail occurs in medium to large river habitats, and has been detected on soapstone substrate
(NatureServe 2008). McGregor et al. (1999) report this species from a creek habitat.
Populations:
There are only two known extant populations of Caper Elimia. McGregor et al. (1999) detected
this species in Pintlalla Creek, an Alabama River tributary, in Montgomery County during surveys
in the mid 1990's. A personal communication in NatureServe (2008) reports that Pierson
detected an extant population of this species in the lower Cahaba (C. Lydeard, University of
Alabama, pers. comm., 2000). Mihalcik and Thompson (2002) report a snail species from the
Escambia River system in southern Alabama that was previously thought to be Elimia curvicostata
but that may be more closely related to Elimia olivula. Total population size for this species is
unknown (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Caper Elimia is declining severely to very rapidly (decline of
50 percent to greater than 70 percent) in the short term, and has experienced a large to very large
long-term decline of 75-90 percent.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Caper Elimia as critically imperiled, meaning it is at very high risk
of extinction throughout its range. The IUCN classifies this snail as Vulnerable. There are only
two known extant populations of this snail. This species is on the Alabama Natural Heritage
Program tracking list. It was formerly a federal candidate for listing under the Endangered Species
Act.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss and degradation pose a dire threat to the two surviving populations of Caper Elimia.
The population in the Cahaba is threatened by habitat degradation. FWS (2007) states that physical
alteration of the Cahaba River and water quality degradation present significant challenges to the

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 369

 survival of aquatic biota, citing dams, channelization, dredging, and coal mining as specific threats.
Physical alterations to the river have degraded substrates and have led to temperature
fluctuations, changes in sediment transport, water depth, and variable stream velocity, and variable
dissolved oxygen and pH (FWS 2007). The Cahaba River is also threatened by rapid urbanization
and commercial development in Jefferson, Shelby and St. Clair Counties (Ibid.). FWS (2007)
states that rampant development of Jefferson and Shelby Counties, and decades of coal mining
have degraded river water quality and hydrologic flows that continue to place stress on presentday populations of freshwater mollusks in the Cahaba River. This species is also threatened by
poor water quality in the Cahaba River due to high nutrient inputs (McGregor et al. 2000).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Caper Elimia. This snail is on the
Alabama Natural Heritage Program tracking list, but this classification does not bestow any
regulatory protection. The Caper Elimia was formerly a federal candidate for listing under the
Endangered Species Act (FWS 1994, Available at: www.epa.gov/EPASPECIES/1994/November/Day-15/pr-42.html . Last accessed June 15, 2009).
Other factors:
The Caper Elimia is very vulnerable to extinction because it now occurs in only two isolated
populations. Any factor which degrades water quality is a threat to the survival of this species. The
one remaining population of this species in the Cahaba is particularly threatened by water
pollution. The Cahaba River receives domestic and industrial wastewaters, and there are at least
103 industrial discharge permits in the Cahaba Basin, which release a variety of toxic metals,
chemicals and other substances (FWS 2007). There are six municipal wastewater treatment plants
in the upper basin with a combined discharge of 19 million gallons a day. River testing has revealed
high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, heavy metals, low dissolved oxygen, organic enrichment,
siltation, and chemical spills in the upper basin. Water quality is degraded by historic and current
coal mine drainage. FWS (2007) states: “Characterization of Cahaba River water quality by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Howard et al. 2002) documented the following problems
in the basin:
• Excessive sedimentation and nutrient enrichment are affecting watershed biology;
• A decline in pollution-sensitive fish species with a concomitant increase in pollution-tolerant
fish species;
• A prominence of the filamentous green algae Cladophora, which is often associated with nutrient
enrichment and nuisance conditions;
• Total phosphorus and total nitrogen ranged from 12 to 960 ppb and 230 to 21,094 ppb,
respectively (12 ppb TP and 230 ppb TN considered adequate);
• Excessive sediments have degraded and altered benthic community and species diversity in
portions of the river;
• Dramatic increase in “disturbed land” in the basin since 1990; and
• High incidence of NPDES permit violations for nutrient or nutrient related parameters over the
last several years.”

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 370

 References:
Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Pierson. 1993. Survey of the aquatic gastropods of the Cahaba River Basin,
Alabama: 1992. Final report submitted in October 1993 to Alabama Natural Heritage Program,
Montgomery, Alabama, Contract Number 1922. 20 pp.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Goodrich, C. 1936. Goniobasis of the Coosa River, Alabama. University of Michigan Museum
of Zoology, Miscellaneous Publications, 31: 1-60.
Goodrich, C. 1941. Distribution of the gastropods of the Cahaba River, Alabama. Occasional
Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 428: 1-30.
Howard, H.S., B. Quinn, M.C. Flexner and R.L. Raschke. 2002. Cahaba River: Biological and
Water Quality Studies, Birmingham, Alabama. March/April, September and July, 2002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Division,
Ecological Support Branch
Lydeard, Charles. Associate Professor, University of Alabama, Department of Biological
Sciences. Box 870345, 425 Scientific Collections Building, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487.
McGregor, S.W., P.E. ONeil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia:Unionidae) fauna in the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11:215–238.
McGregor, S.W., T.E. Shepard, T.D. Richardson, and J.F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1999. A survey of the
primary tributaries of the Alabama and Lower Tombigbee rivers for freshwater mussels, snails,
and crayfish. Geological Survey of Alabama, Circular 196. 29 pp.
Mihalcik, E.L. and F.G. Thompson. 2002 [2003]. A taxonomic revision of the freshwater snails
referred to as Elimia curvicostata, and related species. Walkerana, 13(29/30): 1-108.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Candidate list. www.epa.gov/EPASPECIES/1994/November/Day-15/pr-42.html . Last accessed June 15, 2009.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Habitat
Management Plan. February 2007. Available online at:
www.fws.gov/cahabariver/pdf/Final%20Draft%20Cahaba%20River%20HMP
Last accessed June 12, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 371

 Scientific Name:
Elimia perstriata
Common Name:
Engraved Elimia
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The range of the Engraved Elimia is confined to a few springs and small streams of northern
Alabama. This species has been extirpated from historical locations in Jackson and Franklin
counties at Muscle Shoals in the Tennessee River and in Bird Spring Creek in Madision County
(Goodrich 1930, 1936). It has only been detected recently in Big Spring Branch and Indian Creek
in Madison County and in Fox and Sandy Creeks in Lawrence County (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Burch (1989) describes this species' habitat as springs and small streams. Mirarchi et al. (2004)
state that this snail uses sand, gravel, or cobble substrates, and that it appears to have low tolerance
to silt.
Populations:
There are from one to five extant populations of Engraved Elimia (NatureServe 2008). This
species is known to be extant in Big Spring Branch and Indian Creek in Madison County, Alabama,
and in Fox and Sandy creeks in Lawrence County (Mirarchi et al. 2004). Total population size is
unknown.
Population Trends:
The Engraved Elimia is declining (decline of 10-30 percent) in the short-term and moderately
declining in the long-term (decline of 25 - 50 percent) (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Engraved Elimia is critically imperiled in Alabama (NatureServe). It is a former candidate
species for protection under the Endangered Species Act. It is a Priority 1 Species of Highest
Conservation Concern in Alabama. Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that limited distribution, declining
population trend, and specific habitat requirements make this species vulnerable to extinction.
Habitat destruction:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that the Engraved Elmiia has a low tolerance for silt and that the
springs and small streams where it occurs are easily disturbed and destroyed. Both Big Spring
Branch and Indian Creek are threatened by impacts from urbanization in and around Huntsville
(Mirarchi et al. 2004). The populations in Fox and Sandy creeks are threatened by impacts from
agriculture, including sedimentation, pollution from pesticides and fertilizers, and water
withdrawal for irrigation (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
The Engraved Elimia occurs in waters in or adjacent to Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge
Complex. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Wheeler
(FWS 2007) states that habitat loss and fragmentation and the degradation of aquatic ecosystems
are two of the most important ecological threats facing the complex. Habitat has been lost and
degraded for development to support burgeoning human population. The region surrounding the
refuge is one of the fastest growing areas in Alabama. Habitat has been lost and degraded for
agriculture, flood-control projects, transportation corridors, and residential development (FWS

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 372

 2007). The Conservation Plan states that aquatic ecosystems have been greatly deteriorated by
human activities including impoundment and other activities that cause erosion and sedimentation.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the Engraved Elimia. It is on the Alabama
Natural Heritage Program Tracking List, but this does not confer regulatory protection.
Other factors:
The Engraved Elimia is threatened by other factors including invasive species and water quality
degradation. The Engraved Elimia occurs in waters in or adjacent to Wheeler National Wildlife
Refuge Complex. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for
Wheeler states that the proliferation of invasive species is one of the most important ecological
threats facing aquatic species in the complex and the region (FWS 2007). Mirarchi et al. (2004)
state that the Engraved Elimia is threatened by water pollution from runoff from agriculture and
urbanization, and by water withdrawals for irrigation. FWS (2007) states that aquatic habitats in and
adjacent to Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge have been degraded by point and non-point source
pollution from fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, and toxic discharges, and by the persistent
effects of organochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT, PCB’s, toxaphene, dieldrine, and lindane), and
heavy metals, such as mercury.
References:
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Goodrich, C. 1930. Goniobasis of the vicinity of Muscle Shoals. Occasional Papers of the
Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 209: 1-25.
Goodrich, C. 1936. Goniobasis of the Coosa River, Alabama. University of Michigan Museum
of Zoology, Miscellaneous Publications, 31: 1-60.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment for Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone,
Madison, and Morgan Counties, Alabama. Southeast Region, Atlanta. Available online:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/717323/Wheeler-National-Wildlife-Refuge-Complex-FinalCCP---Wheeler-NWR . Last accessed June 29, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 373

 Scientific Name:
Elimia showalteri
Common Name:
Compact Elimia
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The range of the Compact Elimia consists of less than 100 square km (less than about 40 square
miles) in the main channel of the upper Cahaba River in Bibb County, Alabama (Goodrich 1941,
McGregor et. al. 1999). Burch (1989) reports that this snail occurs from Lily Shoals to two miles
east of Harrisburg.
Habitat:
The Compact Elimia occurs in moderate-current shoals on cobble-boulder-slab substrate
(Mirarchi 2004).
Populations:
There are only two to three occurrences for this species (Pierson pers. comm. cited in
NatureServe 2008). Bogan and Pierson (1993) identified this snail at 13 sites in the upper Cahaba
basin, but each of these cites may not represent an individual occurrence. Total population size for
this species is estimated at fewer than 1,000 individuals (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The Compact Elimia is severely to rapidly declining (decline of 30 percent to greater than 70
percent) in the short-term, and has experienced substantial long-term decline of 50 to over 90
percent (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Compact Elimia as critically imperiled, meaning it is at very high
risk of extinction throughout its range. This species is on the Alabama Natural Heritage Program
Tracking List.
Habitat destruction:
The Compact Elimia is particularly vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation because its range is
restricted to a short section of the Cahaba River where it is threatened by habitat impacts from
agricultural and industrial land uses, impoundment, and urbanization (NatureServe 2008). Herrig
and Shute (2002) and Buckner et al. (2002) describe multiple threats to aquatic species' habitat in
the Cahaba Basin including development, agriculture, recreation, spring development and
diversion, logging, and mining. FWS (2007) states that physical alteration of the Cahaba River and
water quality degradation present significant challenges to the survival of aquatic biota, citing
dams, channelization, dredging, and coal mining as specific threats. Physical alterations to the
river have degraded substrates and have led to temperature fluctuations, changes in sediment
transport, water depth, and variable stream velocity, and variable dissolved oxygen and pH (FWS
2007). The Cahaba River is also threatened by rapid urbanization and commercial development in
Jefferson, Shelby and St. Clair Counties (Ibid.). FWS (2007) states that rampant development of
Jefferson and Shelby Counties, and decades of coal mining have degraded river water quality and
hydrologic flows that continue to place stress on present-day populations of freshwater mollusks
in the Cahaba River. This species is also threatened by poor water quality in the Cahaba River due
to high nutrient inputs (McGregor et al. 2000).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 374

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Compact Elimia. This species is on the
Alabama Natural Heritage Program Tracking List but this does not confer regulatory protection.
NatureServe (2008) reports that no occurrences of this species are adequately protected and
managed.
Other factors:
Other factors which threaten the Compact Elimia include degraded water quality and reduced
viability. NatureServe (2008) states that only one to two populations of of Compact Elimia are
considered to have decent viability. Small isolated populations are inherently more vulnerable to
extinction. The remaining populations of this species are highly vulnerable to degraded water
quality. This snail faces water quality degradation from agricultural and industrial pollution,
impoundment, and human settlement (NatureServe 2008). The Cahaba River receives domestic and
industrial wastewaters, and there are at least 103 industrial discharge permits in the Cahaba Basin,
which release a variety of toxic metals, chemicals and other substances (FWS 2007). There are
six municipal wastewater treatment plants in the upper basin with a combined discharge of 19
million gallons a day. River testing has revealed high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, heavy
metals, low dissolved oxygen, organic enrichment, siltation, and chemical spills in the upper basin.
Water quality is degraded by historic and current coal mine drainage. FWS (2007) states:
“Characterization of Cahaba River water quality by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Howard et al. 2002) documented the following problems in the basin:
• Excessive sedimentation and nutrient enrichment are affecting watershed biology;
• A decline in pollution-sensitive fish species with a concomitant increase in pollution-tolerant
fish species;
• A prominence of the filamentous green algae Cladophora, which is often associated with nutrient
enrichment and nuisance conditions;
• Total phosphorus and total nitrogen ranged from 12 to 960 ppb and 230 to 21,094 ppb,
respectively (12 ppb TP and 230 ppb TN considered adequate);
• Excessive sediments have degraded and altered benthic community and species diversity in
portions of the river;
• Dramatic increase in “disturbed land” in the basin since 1990; and
• High incidence of NPDES permit violations for nutrient or nutrient related parameters over the
last several years.”
References:
Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Pierson. 1993. Survey of the aquatic gastropods of the Cahaba River Basin,
Alabama: 1992. Final report submitted in October 1993 to Alabama Natural Heritage Program,
Montgomery, Alabama, Contract Number 1922. 20 pp.
Buckner, M.M., W. Smith, and J.A. Takats. 2002. Tennessee, Cumberland, and Mobile River
Basins at Risk. Nashville, TN. 52 pp.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 375

 Goodrich, C. 1941. Distribution of the gastropods of the Cahaba River, Alabama. Occasional
Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 428: 1-30.
Herrig, J. and P. Shute. 2002. Chapter 23: aquatic animals and their habitats. Southern Region,
USDA Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority. 45 pp. In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G.,
eds. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 pp. Available at:
www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_23e.pdf Last accessed June 8, 2009.
McGregor, S.W., P.E. ONeil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia:Unionidae) fauna in the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11:215–238.
McGregor, S.W., T.E. Shepard, T.D. Richardson, and J.F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1999. A survey of the
primary tributaries of the Alabama and Lower Tombigbee rivers for freshwater mussels, snails,
and crayfish. Geological Survey of Alabama, Circular 196. 29 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Habitat
Management Plan. February 2007. Available online at:
www.fws.gov/cahabariver/pdf/Final%20Draft%20Cahaba%20River%20HMP
Last accessed June 12, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 376

 Scientific Name:
Elimia teres
Common Name:
Elegant Elimia
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The total global range of the Elegant Elimia consists of less than 100 square km in Tennessee
(NatureServe 2008). This snail occurs only in small streams on Walden Ridge (Goodrich 1940,
Burch 1989).
Habitat:
This snail occurs in small streams (Goodrich 1940, Burch 1989).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are from 1-5 populations of Elegant Elimia. This snail
occurs on a single ridge in Tennessee, and total population size is unknown.
Population Trends:
Population trend information is not available for this species.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this snail as critically imperiled (G1S1). It is a Tier 1 Species of
Greatest Conservation Need in Tennessee. It is categorized as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
This snail is imminently threatened by surface coal mining. This species occurs only on Walden
Ridge, which was named one of the most endangered mountains in America by the environmental
group Appalachia Voices (2008) due to a pending mountaintop removal coal mining proposal.
Mountaintop removal has "pervasive and irreversible" ecosystem impacts (Palmer et al. 2010) and
could extirpate this limited-range species. Coal exploration drilling was completed recently in the
Rock Creek Watershed in southern Bledsoe County. Highland Lands Company and America
Energy Company are seeking a permit for surface coal mining of approximately 1700 acres in this
snail's watershed.
Walden Ridge is also threatened by logging, proposed impoundments, and other land uses which
are incompatible with maintaining riparian and stream habitats (FWS 2007). Timber removal
activities on Walden Ridge often do not employ adequate streamside management zones or best
management practices for road construction (FWS 2007). Aquatic snails are very sensitive to
sedimentation and water quality degradation resulting from logging, mining, and impoundments
(Neves et al. 1997). The Tennessee Wildlife Resource's Agency (2005) states that impoundments
and pollution have taken a great toll on the state's mollusk fauna.
The Elegant Elimia is also threatened by urbanization. NatureServe (2008) states that this snail is
threatened by the expanding urban areas of Knoxville and Oak Ridge. Buckner et al. (2002)
reports that development is burgeoning in previously rural areas around Knoxville, with resultant
impacts on aquatic species. From 1990-2000 the population of Tennessee increased by 17
percent, increasing the pressures on land and water resources.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 377

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechansims to protect this critically imperiled snail. Due to
imminent threats to this species' habitat, it is in dire need of Endangered Species Act protection.
Other factors:
Any factor which degrades the water quality of its small stream habitat threatens the survival of this
species.
References:
Appalachian Voices. 2008. America's Most Endangered Mountains. Available at:
http://www.ilovemountains.org/news/398 Last accessed Jan. 8, 2010.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Goodrich, C. 1940. The Pleuroceridae of the Ohio River drainage system. Occasional Papers of
the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 417: 1-21.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
Mountaintop Mining Consequences. Science 327(5962):148-149.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2005. Tennesse's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy. Available at: http://wildlifeactionplans.org/pdfs/action_plans/tn_action_plan.pdf Last
accessed Jan. 7, 2010.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Candidate Notice of Review -- Southeast Region Summary
Information. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2007/r07-119.html

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 378

 Scientific Name:
Elimia vanuxemiana
Common Name:
Cobble Elimia
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
EX - Extinct

Range:
The range of the Cobble Elimia consists of less than 100 square km (less than about 40 square
miles) in Alabama. This species is endemic to the middle and lower reaches of the Coosa River
and the mouths of a few of its tributaries (Burch 1989, Mirarchi 2004). Goodrich (1936, 1941)
recorded this species in the Coosa from Wetumpka in Elmore County to center Landing in
Cherokee County and in the Alabama River from Claiborne in Monroe County to Selma in Dallas
County. This snail was thought to be extinct, and is now known from only one population that was
redetected in 2004 in the Coosa below Lake Logan Martin (The Birmingham News, May 3, 2005
cited in NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The historical habitat of this snail consisted of shallow backwater areas with still or gentle current
where it used stone or log substrate (Goodrich 1936).
Populations:
There is only one known surviving population of Cobble Elimia, below Lake Logan Martin in the
Coosa River in Alabama. Population size is unknown, but likely low.
Population Trends:
The Cobble Elimia has experienced a very large long-term decline of over 90 percent, and was
thought to be extinct, with only one remaining population of this species having been detected in
2004.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Cobble Elimia as critically imperiled. It is ranked by the IUCN as
extinct, but this needs to be revised, as a single population was redetected in 2004. It is on the
Alabama Natural Heritage Program Tracking List. It was formerly a Federal Candidate for ESA
protection.
Habitat destruction:
The majority of the Cobble Elimia's habitat was destroyed by impoundment (NatureServe 2008),
driving this species to the brink of extinction. Habitat degradation poses a dire threat to the single
remaining population of this species, as a single habitat disturbing event could extirpate the
species. Impoundments have caused extensive loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat for
aquatic snails in the Coosa River and remaining free-flowing habitats are severely limited
(Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) 2005). The Cobble
Elimia’s small remaining habitat is threatened by degradation from sedimentation and nutrient
enrichment caused by gravel mining, feedlots, cropland erosion, agriculture, silviculture, and
urbanization (ADCNR 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Cobble Elimia. It is on the Alabama
Natural Heritage Program Tracking List, but this does not confer regulatory protection. It was
formerly a federal candidate for protection under the Endangered Species Act (FWS 1994
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 379

 Available at: www.epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/1994/November/Day-15/pr-42.html . Last accessed
June 15, 2009).
Other factors:
The Cobble Elimia is highly vulnerable to extinction because there is only one surviving population
of this species, which faces increased susceptibility to stochastic genetic and envrionmental
events. This snail is further threatened by water quality degradation and invasive species. Aquatic
habitats in the Coosa basin are classified as impaired due to organic enrichment, low dissolved
oxygen concentration, altered pH, and altered flow regimes due to impoundment, industrial
discharges, and urban and rural non-point source pollution (Alabama Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources 2005). Non-native crayfish also pose a threat to native aquatic species in
the Coosa basin (ADCNR 2005).
References:
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2005. Alabama’s Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Available at: www.outdooralabama.com/outdooralabama/Strategy.pdf . Last accessed June 15, 2009.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Goodrich, C. 1936. Goniobasis of the Coosa River, Alabama. University of Michigan Museum
of Zoology, Miscellaneous Publications, 31: 1-60.
Goodrich, C. 1941. Pleuroceridae of the small streams of the Alabama River system. Occasional
Papers of the University of Zoology, University of Michigan, 427: 1-10.
Herrig, J. and P. Shute. 2002. Chapter 23: aquatic animals and their habitats. Southern Region,
USDA Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority. 45 pp. In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G.,
eds. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 pp. Available at:
www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_23e.pdf Last accessed June 8, 2009.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Candidate list. www.epa.gov/EPASPECIES/1994/November/Day-15/pr-42.html . Last accessed June 15, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 380

 Scientific Name:
Elliptio ahenea
Common Name:
Southern Lance
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The southern lance is confined to Florida where it is known from the St. Mary's, St. Johns,
Kissimmee, and Suwannee rivers, but is absent from several of the smaller Gulf drainages.
Elliptio ahenea may also be present in the Ochlockonee River system (Johnson 1970, 1972,
Williams and Butler 1994). NatureServe (2008) reports that the total range of this species will
not be known accurately until a genetic analysis is conducted on Elliptio species in Florida.
Habitat:
This mussel prefers stable soft silty sand and mud substrates in slow currents (Johnson 1972).
The lower portion of the Black Creek population in the St. Johns basin occurs in the tidally
influenced portion of the stream.
Ecology:
This mussel is apparently the smaller stream counterpart of E. waltoni. It is not as abundant as
sympatric congeners E. buckleyi, E. Icterina, and E. monroensis.
Populations:
Most occurrences of this species are in the lower and middle tributaries of the St. Johns River
system, and unknown occurrences may exist (NatureServe 2008). Recent occurrences are in the
upper Suwannee River mainstem and lower Withlacoochee River mainstem. There were possibly
historic occurrences exist in the Kissimmee River sytem. This species may also be present but
rare in the Ochlockonee River system (J. Brim Box, pers. obs. in NatureServe 2008). This species
is seldom abundant or dominant like other congeners, except at some sites in the lower
Withlacoochee River where it appears to be the only Elliptio. It appears to be rare in the mainstem
of the Suwannee River system (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information is unknown for this species due to historical confusion with Elliptio jayensis,
but it is possibly fairly stable. Mussel populations in general appear to be in decline in Suwannee
River tributaries, including the Santa Fe and New rivers (J. Brim Box, pers. obs. in NatureServe
2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as vulnerable globally (G3) and under review in Florida
(SNR). Evidence of severe decline is lacking and this species appears stable with some exceptions
(e.g. Suwannee River tributaries), but it has a restricted range that is threatened by continuing
urban development and is often uncommon or rare when found. It is ranked as special
concern/vulnerable by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in
review).
Habitat destruction:
The Southern Lance is threatened by eutrophication, pollution, and excessive urban runoff as a
result of tremendous growth in central Florida, in Orlando County in particular (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 381

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which adequately protect this species. NatureServe
(2008) reports that it is unknown whether any occurrences are appropriately protected. A possible
occurrence exists in the Wekiwa River (springs) State Park (occurrence in lower Wekiwa River).
Other factors:
Water pollution is a significant threat to this mussel (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Fuller, S.L.H. 1974. Chapter 8: Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Pages 215-273 in:
C.W. Hart, Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller (eds.) Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic
Press: New York. 389 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1972. The Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of peninsular Florida. Bulletin of the
Florida State Museum of Biological Science, 16(4): 181-249.
Williams, J.D. and R.S. Butler. 1994. Class Bivalvia, Order Unionoida, freshwater bivalves.
Pages 53-128, 740-742 in M. Deyrup and R. Frantz (eds.) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
Volume 4. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 382

 Scientific Name:
Elliptio arca
Common Name:
Alabama Spike
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
DD - Data deficient

Range:
The Alabama Spike occurs in the Mobile Basin in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee
(NatureServe 2008). In Mississippi, it also occurs in the Pearl River, Pascagoula River, and
Tombigbee River drainages (Jones et al. 2005), and in Georgia, it occurs in the Coosa River Basin
(Williams and Hughes 1998, NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This species has been detected in lateral gravel bars in swift currents (Hartfield and Jones 1990,
NatureServe 2008). It uses lotic areas in medium to large streams, and occurs at highest densities
in swift, shallow shoals in gravel-sand substrates. Individuals have also been detected in runs with
slow, steady current and deep gravel and sand bottoms. This mussel rarely occurs in pools, silty
stream margins, or backwater areas (Mirarchi et al. 2004). USFS (2007) states that this mussel
requires habitat stability, including substrate and water quality.
Ecology:
This mussel is a short-term brooder, with females releasing glochidia in June and July. Glochidia
are released with copious amounts of mucus, and while the exact method of host infestation is
unknown, the mucus may serve to entangle fishes. Redspotted and blackbanded darters are the
primary hosts for glochidia, and the southern sanddarter is a marginal host (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are from 6-80 populations of Alabama Spike. The
number of extant and historical occurrences of this bivalve is difficult to assess due to taxonomic
uncertainty and because rangewide surveys have not been conducted. The current distribution is
disjunct across five states and some populations have limited to poor viability. This mussel has
been detected at 11 sites in the Buttahatchee River in Mississippi and Alabama (Hartfield and
Jones 1990). This species is widespread in the Mobile Basin in Alabama, but the only healthy
populations are in the Sipsey River (Mirarchi et al. 2004) and Yellow Creek (Williams et al.
2008). Parmalee and Bogan (1998) report extant occurrences in the Conasauga River in Bradley
and Polk counties in Tennessee. The species also occurs in the Conasauga River of northwestern
Georgia (GA NHP, pers. comm., March 2007 in NatureServe 2008). Vidrine (1993) and Brown
and Banks (2001) report it from the Amite River in Louisiana and Pearl River in Mississippi and
possibly into Louisiana. This mussel is known in Mississippi from creeks in Lowndes, Jones,
Itawamba, Monroe, Clark, and Wayne Cos. (MS NHP, pers. comm. 2006 in NatureServe 2008),
and from the Pearl, Pascagoula, and Tombigbee drainages (Jones et al. 2005). In the Coosa River
basin in Georgia, it appears to be extant only in the Coosawattee drainage (Williams and Hughes
1998). It is very rare in the Black Warrior River in Tuscaloosa and Greene/Hale Cos. and the
upper Tombigbee River in Sumter and Greene Cos., Alabama (Williams et al. 1992).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 383

 Population Trends:
This mussel is rapidly declining to declining in the short term, and appears to be moderately declining to
relatively stable in the long term (NatureServe 2008). There is a paucity of information on population
viability and trends for this species, but in some drainages this mussel is known to have undergone
recent declines (NatureServe 2008). The population in the Buttahatchee River in Alabama and
Mississippi appears stable at over 200 individuals (Yokley 1978, Hartfield and Jones 1990), but
Hartfield and Jones (1990) note that unionid mussels have been virtually extirpated from the mouth of
the Buttahatchee River to U.S. Hwy 45. The Sipsey River population appears to be the only healthy
occurrence in the Mobile Basin in Alabama (Mirarchi et al. 2004). Williams et al. (2008) report that this
mussel is now extant only in several disjunct populations, and that it is uncommon everywhere except
the Sipsey River and Yellow Creek in the Tombigbee drainage. The species has not been recently
detected at historical occurrences in the Coosa, Etowah, Oostanaula River drainages in Georgia, but is
still extant in the Coosawattee (Williams and Hughes 1998).
Status:
The Alabama Spike is critically imperiled (S1) in Georgia, imperiled in Alabama and Tennessee
(S2), vulnerable in Mississippi (S3), and not ranked in Louisiana (SNR) (NatureServe 2008). This
mussel is listed as endangered by the state of Georgia, is a Priority 1 Species of Greatest
Conservation Need in Alabama, and is a Tier 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in
Mississippi. This mussel is ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et
al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
The Alabama Spike is threatened by habitat loss and degradation including sedimentation,
channelization, mining, and impoundment. Within this species' range in Louisiana and Mississippi,
abandoned and active gravel mines have led to the disappearance of numerous mussel species (Hartfield
and Ebert 1986, Brim Box and Mossa 1999). Kaolin strip mining has also lowered water quality in this
species' habitat (Hartfield and Jones 1990).The construction of reservoirs and other waterway projects
such as the Tenn-Tom Waterway are known to have negatively altered mussel habitat.
Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that the small remaining populations of this species in the Black Warrior,
Coosa, and Tombigbee River systems "could be easily lost with further habitat degradation" (p. 44).
The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources (Wisniewski 2008) lists the following threats to this mussel:
"Excess sedimentation due to inadequate riparian buffer zones, development, and agriculture covers
suitable habitat and could potentially suffocate mussels. Poor agricultural practices may also cause
eutrophication and degraded water quality. Incompatible dam operations on the Coosawattee River are
thought to be a reason for the possible extirpation of this species from the river" (available at:
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage=15).
USFS (2007) states that the Alabama Spike is sensitive to water quality degradation and sedimentation
from ground-disturbing activities within a watershed. This species occurs in the Bankhead National
Forest and is thus potentially threatened by logging and recreational activities.
The Alabama Spike is also threatened by habitat inundation, alterations in the timing and duration of
flow, and interrupted connectivity due to the operation of the Martin Hydroelectric Project (Takats
2009).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 384

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect this species, and no occurrences are
appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). This mussel is listed as Endangered by
the state of Georgia, is a Priority 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama, and a Tier
1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Mississippi, but these designations do not provide any
meaningful regulatory protection. This mussel has no state status in Tennessee or Louisiana.
The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources (Wisniewski 2008) lists the following management
recommendations for this mussel: "Changing the operations of Carters Reservoir was identified as
a high priority management need for the restoration of the Alabama spike to the Coosawattee
River. Irregular flow regimes coupled with cold hypolimnetic discharges are believed to have
caused the decline of the species in the Coosawattee and Oostanaula rivers. Minimizing the
impacts of sedimentation within the Conasauga River may improve existing habitat within the river
and provide suitable areas for reintroduction/augmentation of the species. Surveys should be done
to assess the abundance and distribution of the Alabama spike in the Upper Coosa River Basin"
(available at:
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage=15).
Other factors:
This mussel is vulnerable to extinction because of its restricted distribution, rarity, and declining
population trend. It is now distributed primarily in small, isolated populations which heightens its
susceptibiliity to extinction (Mirarchi et al. 2004). In addition, any factor which leads to decreased
water quality threatens this species. The Alabama Spike is also threatened by any factor which
threatens the host fish on which it depends for reproduction.
References:
Brim Box, J. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and
problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 18(1): 99-117.
Hartfield, P. and D. Ebert. 1986. The mussels of southwest Mississippi streams. American
Malacological Bulletin, 4: 21-23.
Hartfield, P. and R. Jones. 1990. Population status of endangered mussels in the Buttahatchee
River, Mississippi and Alabama. Segment 1 1989. Museum Technical Report No. 9, Museum of
Natural Science, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Jackson, Mississippi.
Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia:
Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of Tennessee
Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
U.S. Forest Service. 2007. Biological Evaluation of Proposed, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive
Species Wildlife Habitat Improvement and Fuels Reduction Project Proposed Action within Winston
County, Alabama. William B. Bankhead Ranger District. 50 pp. Available online:

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 385

 www.fs.fed.us/r8/alabama/planning/documents/BE_Midstory_KV.pdf
Last accessed April 23, 2009.
Vidrine, M.F. 1993. The Historical Distributions of Freshwater Mussels in Louisiana. Gail Q. Vidrine
Collectibles: Eunice, Louisiana. xii + 225 pp. + 20 plates.
Williams, J.D. and M.H. Hughes. 1998. Freshwater mussels of selected reaches of the main
channel rivers in the Coosa drainage of Georgia. U.S. Geological report to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District, Alabama. 21 pp.
Williams, J.D., S.L.H. Fuller, and R. Grace. 1992. Effects of impoundment on freshwater
mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and
Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History, 13:
1-10.
Wisniewski. 2008. Elliptio arca Species Account. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources. Available
at:
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage=15 .
Last accessed June 10, 2009.
Yokley, P. 1978. A survey of the bivalve mollusks of the Buttahatchie River, Alabama and
Mississippi. In: Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 8;
Appendix D. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 386

 Scientific Name:
Elliptio arctata
Common Name:
Delicate Spike
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern
Range:
The Delicate Spike occurs in the Alabama-Coosa River systems, and in the Escambia River
system discontinuously east to the Apalachicola River system and west to the Pearl River system
in Mississippi (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). Elliptio arctata was historically known throughout the
Coosa, Cahaba, Tallapoosa and Tombigbee drainages in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and
Tennessee, with early surveys and museum records indicating that this species was once abundant
in headwater steams and shoals of large rivers (van der Schalie 1938, Hurd 1974). Recent records
are available for the Alabama-Coosa River systems (Gangloff 2003, Johnson 1997, Williams and
Hughes 1998), ACF basin (Brim Box and Williams 2000), Choctowhatchee, Yellow and Escambia
basin (Williams et al. 2000, Blalock et al. 1998, Pilarczyk et al. 2006), and Cahaba River
(McGregor et al. 2000). This species is likely extirpated from historical sites in the
Chattahoochee River system. Although it is reported from throughout the Mobile Basin, there is
some taxonomic uncertainty (Mirarchi et al. 2004). It occurs in Mississippi in the Pearl,
Pascagoula, and Tombigbee River drainages (Jones et al. 2005). Parmalee and Bogan (1998)
report it from the Conasauga River in Bradley and Polk Cos., Tennessee. Johnson (1970)
describes the range as the Atlantic Coast drainages from the Cape Fear River in North Carolina
south to the Savannah River in Georgia and South Carolina, however, records from the Atlantic
slope are likely erroneous (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). This mussel appears to be missing from
drainages south of the Savannah River in Georgia, peninsular Florida, and Gulf drainages east of
the Apalachicola Basin (Brim Box and Williams 2000). Records from the Peace River in
peninsular Florida (van der Schalie 1940) are likely erroneous (NatureServe 2008).
Williams et al. (2008) describe the distribution of this species as most of the eastern Gulf Coast
drainages from the Apalachicola Basin in Georgia and Florida west to the Pearl River drainage,
Mississippi, including the Mobile Basin. In the Mobile Basin, this species is widespread but
uncommon and highly fragmented. Williams et al. (2008) state that there is no evidence to
support reports of this species in Atlantic Coast drainages.
Habitat:
This mussel has been found among and under rocks along the shoreline in rivers (Johnson 1970),
in sand-gravel and sand-limestone substrates (Brim Box and Williams 2000), and in fine gravel
and sand in moderate currents (Heard 1979). Parmalee and Bogan (1998) describe this species
habitat as coarse sand and gravel, often under and around large rocks, and usually in current. Hurd
(1974) reports that this mussel is found packed vertically under large rocks. Catena Group (2007)
found this species associated with hard substrates in run habitats under rocks.
Ecology:
Little is known about the ecology of this mussel, but it is presumed to be a short-term brooder
similar to its congeners (Mirarchi et al. 2004).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 387

 Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are from 6-80 populations of Delicate Spike. Many historical
populations are no longer extant. This mussel has been recently detected in the Coosa drainage in Little
River and in Hatchet, Kelly, Big Canoe, and Terrapin creeks, and in the Tallapoosa Drainage in
Choctafaula, Saugahatchee, and Loblockee creeks (Godwin and Shelton 1999, Gangloff 2003). In
Alabama, it is now extremely rare in the Coosa and Tallapoosa drainages. It is also extremely rare in the
Connasauga (Evans 2001) and Upper Tallapoosa drainages (Johnson 1997). In the Pea River system it
was recently detected at two historic occurrences and six new occurrences (Blalock et al. 1998), but was
absent at 42 other surveyed locations (Blalock et al. 1998). This species was only detected at 17 of 324
sites recently surveyed sites in the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint (ACF) rivers of Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia, in contrast to 91 historical records from 66 sites in the ACF Basin (Brim Box and
Williams 2000). The species was only detected at 2 of 13 historical sites in the Escambia River drainage
(Williams et al. 2000).This species is also missing from two historical sites in the Yellow River drainage
(Williams et al. 2000). Of 179 surveyed sites in the Escambia and Yellow rivers, only one individual
was found at a single site in the Conecuh (Williams et al. 2000). Only relict shell materials have been
detected in Jefferson and Bibb counties in Alabama, in the Cahaba River at the Little Cahaba
confluence, and in the North River in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama (Pierson pers. comm. 1997 in
NatureServe 2008). This species was reported from the Cahaba River in 1991, but was absent in 2000
(McGregor et al. 2000). This mussel was only detected at two of 24 surveyed sites in the
Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and Conecuh-Escambia River drainages in southern Alabama in 2004
(Pilarczyk et al. 2006). Williams and Hughes (1998) report that it not been collected live recently in
Georgia in the Coosa, Etowah, Oostanaula, or Conasauga River drainages. Vidrine (1993) reports that
this species is absent in Louisiana, but present nearby in the Strong River in the Pearl River drainage,
however, Darden et al. (2002) report that this species appears to be missing in the Strong River in
Mississippi (cited in NatureServe 2008). Catena Group (2007) detected this species at three sites in the
Savannah River with the sites supporting 1, 4, and 13 invididuals.
Historical abundance is difficult to estimate due to taxonomic uncertainty. The species is now
uncommon in the Escambia, Yellow and Pea rivers (Blalock et al. 1998, Williams et al. 2000) and in
many other areas throughout its historic range (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The Delicate Spike is declining in the short term and moderately declining to relatively stable in
the long term (NatureServe 2008). These trends are based on poor historical records and may
understate the level of decline this species has experienced based on very low population
abundance or total absence at many occurrences. Many populations throughout the historical
range are known to be dwindling, and the species is extirpated from some river systems and
declining in most, particularly in the Coosa-Tallapoosa and Choctawhatchee-Escambia drainages
(NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Delicate Spike is critically imperiled in Mississippi and Georgia, imperiled in Alabama,
Florida, and Tennessee, and not ranked in South Carolina (NatureServe 2008). It is listed as
Endangered by the state of Georgia, and is a Tier 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in
Mississippi, and a Priority 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama. Its rank is being
changed from special concern (Williams et al. 1993) to threatened by the American Fisheries
Society (draft 2010, in review).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 388

 Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss and degradation from a variety of factors has caused the extirpation of many
populations of Delicate Spike and pose an ongoing threat to this declining species (NatureServe
2008). The Delicate Spike is significantly threatened by poor land management practices which
result in decreased water quality due to sedimentation, and by bank and streambed destabilization
and water withdrawals (NatureServe 2008). This mussel is threatened by impoundment (Williams
et al. 1992). The widescale conversion of hardwood forests to pine plantations threaten this
mussel (NatureServe 2008). Catena Group (2007) report that mussel habitat in the Savannah River
has been degraded by bank instabililty and unstable, shifting sediments. The Georgia Dept. of
Natural Resources (2008) reports that this mussel is threatened by sedimentation and
eutrophication resulting from agriculture, development, and inadequate riparian buffer zones. This
mussel is also threatened by incompatible dam operations on the Coosawattee River. Water
withdrawals for agriculture in the Lower Flint basin threaten populations in small streams,
particularly during periods of drought (GDNR 2008). Gillies et al. (2003) report that urbanization
threatens this species in the Atlanta area.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the Delicate Spike, and no occurrences
are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). It is listed as Endangered by the
state of Georgia, and is a Tier 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Mississippi, and a
Priority 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama, but these designations do not
provide any substantial regulatory protection. It is not listed in Tennessee, South Carolina, or
Florida. NatureServe (2008) states, "Because E. arctata is now rare, has a highly restricted range
(Mobile Endemic), and specific microhabitat requirements, E. arctata should be considered for
federal protection."
Other factors:
The Delicate Spike is threatened by factors which decrease water quallity or negatively affect hostfish populations. This mussel is threatened by runoff, chemical pollutants, and siltation
(NatureServe 2008). Because many populations of this species have been extirpated, it is
threatened by population isolation. Mirarchi et al. (2004) state, "Limited distribution, rarity, and
specialized habitat requirements make E. arctata vulnerable to extinction" (p. 45).
References:
Blalock, H.N., J.J. Herod, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Freshwater mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of
the Pea River Watershed of Alabama and Florida. Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 61 pp.
Brim Box, J. and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 21: 1-143.
Catena Group. 2007. Freshwater Mussel Surveys, The Savannah River from Augusta to Savannah:
South Carolina & Georgia. Prepared for: International Paper & U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Hillsborough, North Carolina. Dec. 17, 2007. 40 pp.
Gangloff, M.M. 2003. The status, physical habitat associations, and parasites of freshwater
mussels in the upper Alabama River Drainage, Alabama. Ph.D. Dissertation, Auburn University.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 389

 Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, Wisniewski, J. 2008. Elliptio arctata Species Account.
Available at: http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/1379 Accessed Jan. 26, 2010.
Gillies, R.R., J. Brim Box, J. Symanzik, and E.J. Rodemarker. 2003. Effects of urbanization on
the aquatic fauna of the Line Creek watershed, Atlanta—a satellite perspective. Remote Sensing
of Environment 86:411-422.
Hurd, J.C. 1974. Systematics and zoogeography of the Unionacean mollusks of the Coosa River
drainage of Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor,
Michigan. Auburn University. Ph.D. dissertation. 240 pp., 10 tables, 6 fig., + 63 maps.
Johnson, J.A. 1997. The mussel, snail, and crayfish species of the Tallapoosa River Drainage,
with an assessment of their distribution in relation to chemical and physical habitat
characteristics. M.S. Thesis, Auburn University. 232 p..
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard
University, 140(6): 263-449.
Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia:
Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.
McGregor, S.W., P.E. O'Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) fauna of the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11(26): 215-237.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
Pilarczyk, M.M., P.M. Stewart, D.N. Shelton, H.N. Blalock-Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2006.
Current and Recent historical freshwater mussel assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains.
Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2): 205-226.
Van der Schalie, H. 1938. The naiads (fresh-water mussels) of the Cahaba River in northern
Alabama. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Occasional Papers, 392: 1-29.
Williams, J.D. and M.H. Hughes. 1998. Freshwater mussels of selected reaches of the main
channel rivers in the Coosa drainage of Georgia. U.S. Geological report to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District, Alabama. 21 pp.
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the
Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
908 pp.
Williams, J.D., H.N. Blalock, A. Benson, and D.N. Shelton. 2000. Distribution of the freshwater
mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae and Unionidae) in the Escambia and Yellow river
drainages in southern Alabama and western Florida. Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 61 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 390

 Williams, J.D., S.L.H. Fuller, and R. Grace. 1992. Effects of impoundment on freshwater
mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and
Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History, 13:
1-10.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 391

 Scientific Name:
Elliptio fraterna
Common Name:
Brother Spike
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
DD - Data deficient

Range:
The Brother Spike is a naturally rare mussel known only from the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers
of Alabama and Georgia, and the Savannah River drainage of South Carolina (Mirarchi et al.
2004). This distribution is disjunct, and there are no known records from intervening drainages
(Brim Box and Williams 2000, NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This species has been found on sand bars in the mainstem of the Savannah River (Britton and
Fuller 1979). Johnson (1970) describes its habitat as sandy substrates in the main channel of
rivers and larger tributaries in swift currents, but this may have been in reference to a closely
related species (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) report that this mussel is likely a short-term brooder like its congeners.
Populations:
There are less than five populations of Brother Spike, with five records being known from three
occurrences (NatureServe 2008). Catena Group (2007) recently detected this species at 3 sites in
the Savannah River, with one individual being encountered per site. Before this, the species had
last been reported from the Savannah drainage in 1972 (Britton and Fuller 1979), which at the
time was the only record from the drainage since the species' description in 1852. This mussel
was last detected in the ACF Basin in the Flint River in 1929. A recent survey of 324 sites in the
ACF basin failed to detect this mussel (Brim Box and Williams 2000).
Total population size is estimated at 50 - 2500 individuals (NatureServe 2008), but this is likely
an overestimate, as there are only seven known specimens from the Chattahoochee and Flint
drainages, and three from the Savannah River (Catena Group 2007), with the Savannah River
individuals having been collected for genetic analysis.
Population Trends:
The Brother Spike is rapidly declining in the short term and substantially to moderately declining
in the long term (NatureServe 2008). This species is considered to be naturally rare in the
Savannah system, and historically uncommon in the Chattahoochee and Flint drainages as well
(NatureServe 2008). The species is probably extirpated in Alabama (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Brother Spike as extirpated in Alabama (SX), and critically
imperiled in Georgia and South Carolina. This species was historically rare and is now limited to
less than five fragmented occurrences. It is possibly extirpated from the Chattahoochee and Flint
rivers of Alabama and Georgia (NatureServe 2008). The American Fisheries Society ranks
Elliptio fraterna as Endangered (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 392

 Habitat destruction:
This mussel is threatened by habitat loss and modification including damming, dredging,
extremely low water levels, and sedimentation resulting from poor land management practices
(NatureServe 2008). Catena Group (2007) state that unstable banks and substrates threaten
mussels in the Savannah River, which may harbor the only extant populations of this species. The
South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources (2005) reports that this mussel is sensitive to channel
modification, pollution, sedimentation and low oxygen conditions.
Overutilization:
Overutilization threatens the survival of this mussel because so few individuals survive in the wild.
This species had not been detected in the Savannah River since 1972 and was thought to be
extirpated in that system. The three individuals which were detected in the Savannah were removed
from the wild for genetic analyses (Catena Group 2007), which could contribute to the extirpation
of Brother Spike in the Savannah drainage if they were not returned.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect this species. This mussel is likely
extirpated in Alabama, and is not protected by the states of Georgia or South Carolina. NatureServe
(2008) reports that no occurences are appropriately protected and managed.
Other factors:
Any factor which reduces water quality or quantity will negatively affect this species. This mussel
is threatened by decreased survival and reproductive success due to decreased water quality
resulting from pollutants and sedimentation (NatureServe 2008). It is also threatened by rarity, low
population size, and drastically reduced range.
References:
Brim Box, J. and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 21: 1-143.
Britton, J.C. and S.L.H. Fuller. 1979. The freshwater bivalve mollusca (Unionidae, Sphaeriidae,
Corbiculidae) of the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina. Savannah River Plant Publications
SRO-NEPR-3. Department of Energy. 37 pp.
Catena Group. 2007. Freshwater Mussel Surveys, The Savannah River from Augusta to Savannah:
South Carolina & Georgia. Prepared for: International Paper & U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Hillsborough, North Carolina. Dec. 17, 2007. 40 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard
University, 140(6): 263-449.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources. 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy. Brother Spike Species Account. Accessed Jan. 22, 2010 at:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/BrotherSpike.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 393

 Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 394

Scientific Name:
Elliptio lanceolata
Common Name:
Yellow Lance
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The yellow lance is a freshwater mussel native to the Coastal Plain of the southeastern United
States. It occurs in Virginia and North Carolina, and possibly in Maryland and South Carolina.
There are unresolved taxonomic issues for this mussel in Maryland, and if it ever existed there, it
may now be extirpated. Taxonomy of this species is also unresolved in South Carolina.
Natural heritage records indicate that this species is known from Duplin, Edgecombe, Franklin,
Granville, Halifax, Johnston, Nash, Vance, Wake, Warren, and Wayne Counties in North Carolina,
potentially in Abbeville, Chesterfield, Edgefield, Greenwood, Lancaster, Laurens, McCormick,
Newberry, Oconee, and Saluda Counties in South Carolina, and in Alleghany, Amherst, Bath,
Bedford, Botetourt, Brunswick, Buckingham, Buena Vista, Chesterfield, Craig, Culpeper,
Cumberland, Dinwiddie, Emporia, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Goochland, Greensville, Hanover, Louisa,
Lunenburg, Madison, Nelson, Nottoway, Orange, Powhatan, Prince William, Rappahannock,
Rockbridge, Southampton, and Spotsylvania Counties in Virginia. It is likely extirpated from
Fairfax and Stafford Counties in Virginia (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The yellow lance inhabits creeks and medium-sized rivers and is found in areas with low flow
rates, in sandy, rocky, or mud substrates (Johnson 1970). It may deeply entrench itself in sandy
substrate and incidentally migrate with moving sand, although major dispersal typically only
occurs by means of glochidial host movement in the larval phase (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
The yellow lance reproduces as do most other freshwater mussels: larvae are parasitic on various
fish species, though glochidial host species for E. lanceolata are unknown (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Numerous historic occurrences of this species are likely extirpated. There are possibly 15 extant
occurrences of this mussel in North Carolina, and several in Virginia. Within the range where the
yellow lance is currently recognized to occur, Johnson (1970) lists three historical occurrences
from the Neuse River drainage, two from the Tar River, two from the Roanoke River system, one
from the Chowan River system, seven from the James River drainage, two from the South Anna
River drainage, and four from the Rappahannock River system. It may currently be extirpated from
the Roanoke River system and from the main stem of the Rappahannock River (J. Alderman, pers.
comm. cited in NatureServe 2008). In Virginia, this mussel is extirpated, or nearly so, from the
Lower Chesapeake and James River basins with extant occurrences only in the Rapidan-Upper
Rappahannock and Mattaponi, and the Upper James and Middle James-Willis (J. Alderman, pers.
comm., 2000; VA NHP, pers. comm., 2006, both cited in NatureServe 2008).
The abundance of Elliptio lanceolata is unknown, but it is thought that there are at least 2500
individuals. This mussel appears to be declining in abundance throughout most of its historical
range. For example, only one individual was found in a recent survey of parts of the South Anna River
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 395

 drainage (J. Alderman, pers. comm. cited in NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species has declined by up to 30 percent in the short-term,
and up to 50 percent in the long-term stating: "It is extremely threatened with extirpation in the
Neuse River system. Stable populations exist in the Tar River, but these are patchily distributed
and therefore vulnerable to extirpation. It appears to be extirpated from historical occurrences in
the Tar River below Rocky Mount, North Carolina (J. Alderman, pers. comm.). It also appears to
have been recently extirpated from Ruin creek in Vance County and the Tar River in Edgecombe
County, North Carolina. Elliptio lanceolata occurs in the Chowan River basin, but has a restricted
range within that system. Is now very rare in the James, S. Anna, and Rappannock rivers, and no
information is available regarding its current status in the Roanoke River (J. Alderman, pers.
comm.). . . In Virginia, it is extirpated, or nearly so from the Lower Chesapeake and James River
basins with extant occurrences only in the Rapidan-Upper Rappahannock and Mattaponi, and the
Upper James and Middle James-Willis (J. Alderman, pers. comm., 2000; VA NHP, pers. comm.,
2006)." If this species ever occurred in Maryland, it is likely now extirpated from the state.
Records from South Carolina are taxonomically uncertain. NatureServe (2008) states, " Despite
questions about its taxonomy, whether it eventually is deemed to be a species or species complex,
the taxon is clearly beginning to experience the effects of decline throughout much of its range."
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the yellow lance is critically imperiled in North Carolina and
imperiled in Virginia; its status has not been evaluated in Maryland or South Carolina due to
taxonomic uncertainty. It is listed as endangered in North Carolina and as a species of special
concern in Virginia. Many remaining populations are small and of dubious viability. It is ranked as
endangered by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
The yellow lance is threatened across its range by habitat degradation and loss resulting from
agriculture, logging, and municipal development. Additionally, in parts of its range, this mussel is
threatened by impoundment and channelization.
In North Carolina, aquatic species in the Neuse drainage have been negatively affected by the
construction of Falls Lake, which has significantly altered water temperatures below the dam.
Thermal alteration and general pollution problems around Raleigh have reduced habitat in the
upper Neuse River (NatureServe 2008). The Neuse is routinely considered to be an endangered
basin (American Rivers Foundation 2007) with impacts such as urban wastewater, fertilizer,
industrial development and animal operations all contributing to eutrophication (Pinckney et al.
1997, Paerl et al. 1998). In-stream habitat in the Neuse Basin has been lost and degraded by
forestry, urban and residential development, impoundments, and effluent (North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2002). Agriculture and farming operations
have contributed to habitat degradation, and development is rapidly increasing (Midway 2008).
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (2005) reports that aquatic species in the
Neuse Basin are threatened by agriculture, forestry, impoundments, water withdrawals for
irrigation, development, wastewater discharges, and increasing human population. The human
population within the basin is expected to grow by more than 867,000 by 2020 to almost 3
million people. Development, confined animal feeding operations, and forestry also threaten
aquatic species in the Tar River basin, but to a lesser extent than the Neuse (Starnes 2002).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 396

 Aquatic species in the Tar River basin are threatened by erosion, sedimentation, channelization,
agriculture, irrigation withdrawals, confined animal feeding operations, and increasing human
population growth and development pressure (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
2005b).
In Virginia, the yellow lance is threatened by sediment load alteration from agriculture, forestry,
and municipal development, by channel and shoreline alteration from agriculture, and by
hydrologic regime alteration from municipal development (Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland
Fisheries 2010).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the yellow lance. Though it is listed as
endangered in North Carolina and as a species of special concern in Virginia, these designations
offer this species no substantial regulatory protections from habitat destruction or degradation and
cannot be deemed sufficient. NatureServe (2008) reports that no occurrences of this species are
appropriately protected and managed.
Other factors:
Water pollution threatens the survival of this mussel. The Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland
Fisheries (2010) reports that the yellow lance is threatened by toxins from roadways and from
municipal development, and by organic matter from agriculture. Aquatic species in Virginia’s MidAtlantic Coastal Plain are threatened by water pollution including low dissolved-oxygen levels,
high fecal coliform counts, and altered pH resulting from agricultural and urban runoff. In
Virginia’s Southern Piedmont, water is polluted by these same sources and by abandoned mine
runoff. In the Blue Ridge mountains, aquatic species face the same threats and are also
contaminated with mercury and PCBs (Virginia Wildlife Action Plan 2006a, 2006b, 2006c).
Water pollution is also a documented threat to this species in North Carolina (North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission 2005a, 2005b).
The yellow lance is also threatened by any factor which threatens the host fish on which it is
dependent for reproduction.
This mussel is also threatened by stochastic genetic and environmental events due to its extant
distribution primarily in small, isolated populations.
References:
American Rivers Foundation. 2007. Report on the 20 most threatened American rivers.
American River Foundation, New York.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard
University, 140(6): 263-449.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 397

 Midway, S.R. 2008. Habitat Ecology of the Carolina Madtom, Noturus furiosus, an Imperiled
Endemic Stream Fish. Masters Thesis, North Carolina State University. Accessed March 9, 2010
at:
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-12032008-195315/unrestricted/etd.pdf
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
November 9, 2009)
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2002. Neuse River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005a. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan,
Neuse River Basin. Accessed March 9, 2010 at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan/documents/NeuseRiverBasin/NRB-Full.pdf
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005b. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan,
Tar-Pimlico River Basin. Accessed March 9, 2010 at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan/documents/Tar-PamlicoRiverBasin/TPRB-Full.pdf
Paerl, H. W., J. L. Pinckney, J. M. Fear, and B. L. Peierls. 1998. Ecosystem responses to internal
and watershed organic matter loading: consequences for hypoxia in the eutrophying Neuse River
Estuary, North Carolina, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 166:17–25.
Pinckney J. L., D. F. Millie, B. T. Vinyard, H. W. Paerl. 1997. Environmental controls of
phytoplankton bloom dynamics in the Neuse River estuary, North Carolina, USA. Canadian
Journal of Aquatic Science 54:2491-2501
Starnes, W. 2002. North Carolina Wildlife Resouces Commission - Nongame Wildlife Advisory
Committee Report. 6 Nov. 2002.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Freshwater mussels of the upper Mississippi
River system. Accessed online October 21, 2009
<http://www.fws.gov/midwest/mussel/current_threats.html>
Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2010. The Virginia Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
Appendix H — Threats to Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Accessed March 26, 2010 at:
http://www.bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-action-plan/appendix-h.pdf
Virginia Wildlife Action Plan. 2006a. Chapter 4. Virginia’s Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Accessed April 2, 2010 at:
http://bewildvirginia.net/wildlife-action-plan/chapter-4.pdf
Virginia Wildlife Action Plan. 2006b. Chapter 5. Virginia’s Southern Appalachian Piedmont.
Accessed April 2, 2010 at:
http://bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-action-plan/chapter-5.pdf
Virginia Wildlife Action Plan. 2006c. Chapter 6. Virginia’s Blue Ridge Mountains. Accessed
April 2, 2010 at: http://bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-action-plan/chapter-6.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 398

 Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 399

Scientific Name:
Elliptio monroensis
Common Name:
St. John's Elephantear
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The St. John's elephantear is endemic to the St. Johns River system in Florida with the intervening
St. Marys and Satilla Rivers separating this species from the similar Elliptio dariensis in the
Altamaha River system in Georgia (Butler 1994).
Habitat:
This mussel occurs in sandy substrates in lakes and in streams with little current (Heard 1979).
Populations:
Within the single river system where it occurs, this mussel is found in Black Creek, Lake
Monroe, and the St. Johns River in the St. Johns River system (Butler 1984, Johnson 1972).
Johnson (1972) lists St. John's River drainage specimens (as Elliptio dariensis) from the
Econlockhatchee River near the St. John's River confluence, the St. John's River in Osceola and
Sanford (Seminole Co.), Lake Monroe (also Seminole Co.), and Lakes Beresford and Woodruff
in Volusia Co., as well as the St. Johns River in Georgetown (Putnam Co.). It has also been
reported from Julington Creek just south of Jacksonville (St. Johns River drainage) (NatureServe
2008). Population data are not available.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) does not have population data for this species. It is considered to be
threatened by the American Fisheries Society (2010 draft, in review) which indicates likely
decline.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this mussel as imperiled globally and under review in Florida (G2SNR).
It is being ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
This species is endemic to one small river system and is thus particularly vulnerable to habitat
degradation. The St. John's river is highly threatened by eutrophication from urban runoff (St.
Johns River Water Management District 2010).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this mussel, and NatureServe (2008)
reports that it is unknown whether any occurrences are appropriately protected.
Other factors:
This mussel is threatened by water pollution.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 400

 References:
Butler, R.S. 1994. Untitled. Triannual Unionid Report, 4: 2 pp.
Heard, W.H. 1979. Identification manual of the fresh water clams of Florida. State of Florida,
Department of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series, 4(2): 1-82.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard
University, 140(6): 263-449.
Johnson, R.I. 1972. The Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of peninsular Florida. Bulletin of the
Florida State Museum of Biological Science, 16(4): 181-249.
St. Johns River Water Management District. 2010. Water Quality. Accessed April 13, 2010 at:
http://sjr.state.fl.us/stjohnsriver/waterquality.html

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 401

 Scientific Name:
Elliptio purpurella
Common Name:
Inflated Spike
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The range of the Inflated Spike is estimated at 250-1000 square km in the Apalachicola Drainage
Basin in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia below the Fall Line. Historically this mussel occurred in
the mainstem and tributaries of the Flint, Chattahoochee, and Chipola rivers, but is now extant
only in tributaries of the Flint River in Georgia, and is possibly extirpated from the Chipola and
Chattahoochee river drainages and from the mainstem of the Flint River (Brim Box and Williams
2000, Gagnon et al. 2006). The species is possibly extirpated in Alabama where it formerly
occurred in the Chattahoochee and Chipola River systems, but recently detected unconfirmed
indiviudals from Big Creek in the Chipola River headwaters in Houston Co. appear to be Elliptio
purpurella (Mirarchi et al. 2004). Williams et al. (2008) report that this mussel is extant in
Alabama only in the headwaters of the Chipola River.
Habitat:
The Inflated Spike occurs in creeks and rivers, mostly in areas of flowing water, but occasionally
in lakes under some conditions. Sand and clay substrates are preferred, and this mussel is
associated with limestone (Brim Box and Williams 2000).
Ecology:
This mussel is likely a short-term brooder that is gravid during spring. Glochidial hosts are
uknown (Williams et al. 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are from 6-20 populations of Inflated Spike. There are
14 known sites in tributaries of the Flint River on the coastal plain of Georgia in the
Apalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint basin (Brim Box and Williams 2000). In southwestern Georgia,
this mussel occurs in about a dozen tributary streams in the lower Flint River Basin (Golladay et
al. 2004). There is one extant population in Alabama (Williams et al. 2008).
In tributaries of the Flint River, 369 live individuals were recorded in 1991-1992 (Brim Box and
Williams 2000). This mussel made up 1.03 percent (relative abundance) of the 14,873 mussels
collected in surveys of 46 sites in 12 tributary streams of the lower Flint River Basin, Georgia in
1999 (Gagnon et al. 2006). In 1999 and 2001, this species was found in 10 sites (99 specimens)
and 8 sites (161 specimens), respectively, in surveys of 21 sites (each year) in about a dozen
tributary streams of the lower Flint River Basin, in southwestern Georgia (Golladay et al. 2004).
Population Trends:
The Inflated Spike is declining in the short term, and moderately declining in the long term
(decline of 25-50 percent). This species is now known from a restricted range in one river
drainage in Georgia, and it is nearly extirpated in Alabama. In Georgia and Alabama it is likely
extirpated from the Chattahoochee River drainage and from the mainstem of the Flint River (Brim
Box and Williams 2000).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 402

 Status:
The Inflated Spike is critically imperiled in Alabama and imperiled in Georgia (NatureServe
2008). It is a Priority 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama, and is a Threatened
species in Georgia. It is extirpated in Florida. It is being ranked as vulnerable by the American
Fisheries Society (2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Because this species is either extirpated or nearly extirpated in Alabama and occurs in a single
drainage in Georgia, it is highly vulnerable to habitat alteration. Freshwater mussels are threatened
by any activities which decrease water availability or water quality including diversion,
impoundment, and ground-disturbing activities. The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources
(Wisniewski 2008) lists the following threats for this species: "Excess sedimentation due to
inadequate riparian buffer zones, development, and agriculture covers suitable habitat and could
potentially suffocate mussels. Poor agricultural practices may also cause eutrophication and
degrade water quality. Excessive agriculture water pumping in the lower Flint River basin appears
to stress the aquatic resources of the basin in periods of extreme drought" (available at:
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage=15).
The Alabama Clean Water Partnership (2006) reports that Big Creek, a Chipola River tributary
which is the only extant site for this species in Alabama, contains excessive nutrients, organic
enrichment, and low dissolved oxygen, potentially from stormwater from urbanized industrial
areas and wastewater discharges (p. 1-13). Water quality in the Chipola Basin is threatened by
nonpoint source pollution including sediment, nutrients, animal and human waste, and petroleum
products from widespread, hard-to-identify sources (ACWP 2006).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the Inflated Spike, and no occurrences of
this mussel are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). It is a Priority 1
Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama, and is a Threatened species in Georgia, but
these designations do not provide any substantial regulatory protection.
The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources (Wisniewski 2008) lists the following management
recommendations for this mussel: "Examination of basic life history was identified as a top
research priority needed for the conservation of this species during the 2005 Georgia Wildlife
Action Plan. Understanding the basic life history of this species will provide the foundation upon
which all other research and conservation actions should be built. Investigating the effects of
groundwater withdrawals on the distribution and abundance of rare species in the lower Flint River
basin was also identified as a high priority research need for this species" (available at:
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage=15).
Other factors:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that limited distribution and rarity make this species vulnerable to
extinction. In addition, any factor which decreases water quality or quantity threatens this species,
including drought and pollution. After a drought in 1999-2001, this mussel declined in abundance
in the Flint River drainage in Georgia (Chastain et al. 2005).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 403

 References:
Alabama Clean Water Partnership. 2006. Chattahoochee and Chipola Rivers Basin Management
Plan. Accessed Jan. 26, 2010 at:
http://www.adem.state.al.us/Education%20Div/Nonpoint%20Program/Basins/ChattChip%20Basin%20Management%20Plan.pdf
Brim Box, J. and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 21: 1-143.
Chastain, C.A., S.W. Golladay, and T.K. Muenz. 2005. Distribution of unionid mussels in
tributaries of the lower Flint River, southwestern Georgia: an examination of current and
historical trends. Presented at the Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources
Conference, 25-27 April 2005, University of Georgia.
Gagnon, P., W. Michener, M. Freeman, and J. Brim Box. 2006. Unionid habitat and assemblage
composition in coastal plain tributaries of Flint River (Georgia). Southeastern Naturalist, 5(1):
31-52.
Golladay, S.W., P. Gagnon, M. Kearns, J.M. Battle, and D.W. Hicks. 2004. Response of
freshwater mussel assemblages (Bivalvia: Unionidae) to a record drought in the Gulf Coastal
Plain of southwestern Georgia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 23(3):
494-506.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Wisniewski, J.M. 2008. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources Species Account. Available at:
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=89&txtPage=15).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 404

 Scientific Name:
Elytraria caroliniensis var. angustifolia
Common Name:
Narrowleaf Carolina Scalystem
G Rank:
T2
Range:
Narrowleaf Carolina scalystem is endemic to southern Florida, where it is found only in Dade,
Collier, Lee, and Broward counties (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant is largely restricted to calcareous areas within wet woodlands, seepage slopes, wet
prairies, or pine rocklands (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are nine known occurrences of this plant , but population sizes are not reported
(NatureServe 2008). It is most common in and around Long Pine Key (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that populations are stable in the short-term, but longer-term trends
are not known. This plant is no longer found along the edges of the "finger glades" that transect
the Miami ridge pinelands.
Status:
This plant is endemic to a small range in southern Florida, within which it is relatively rare and
restricted to particular habitat type (calcareous marshes). It no longer occurs in parts of its
historical range. NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled.
Habitat destruction:
The scalystem is threatened by anthropogenic alteration of wetland hydrology (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The occurrences of this plant in Everglades National Park are fairly well-protected, and this plant
may also occur in Big Cypress National Park. It also occurs in some state parks, where
protections are minimal. In sum, no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the
Carolina scalystem or its habitat.
References:
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 11, 2009)
Wunderlin, R.P. 1982. Guide to the vascular plants of central Florida. Univ. Presses Florida,
Gainesville. 472 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 405

 Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 406

Scientific Name:
Encyclia cochleata var. triandra
Common Name:
Clam-shell Orchid
G Rank:
T2
Range:
E. cochleata var. triandra is a rare orchid endemic to the state of Florida, and is likely restricted to
three counties within the state, though conclusive surveys have not been conducted. Its total
range probably covers less than 100 square miles (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This orchid is found in tropical hammocks, buttonwood (Platanus spp.), and cypress strands
(NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
The orchid is an epiphytic perennial.
Populations:
Population size for E. c. var triandra is not known, but very few populations are confirmed
throughout its small range (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this species.
Status:
This orchid is very rare and is endemic to a small range in northern Florida. NatureServe (2008)
reports that the clam-shell orchid is imperiled throughout this range.
Overutilization:
Widespread collection of this species poses the greatest threat to its persistence and has caused
significant reductions to several local populations (NatureServe 2008)
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.
References:
Dodson, Dr. Calloway. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, Missouri.
Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada,
and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
McCartney, Chuck. 1985. South Florida's epiphytic orchids - how healthy are they? Palmetto,
Summer 1985, p. 3-5.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 407

 Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 408

Scientific Name:
Epidendrum strobiliferum
Common Name:
Big Cypress Epidendrum
G Rank:
G4
Range:
This small orchid species is widely distributed in Central America, but found in just one site in
Florida, in Collier County (NatureServe 2008). It is present in Southern Florida, from Mexico to
Brazil, in Cuba, Hispaniola, the Lesser Antilles, and Trinidad.
Habitat:
In Florida, this epiphyte grows on pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana) and pond apple (Annona glabra)
within cypress sloughs. In more southerly portions of its range, this species is found in tropical
hammocks at up to 4500 ft in elevation (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
The big cypress epidendrum is a small, perennial, epiphytic orchid (NatureServe 2008)
Populations:
Global population size is not known, but this species is reportedly rare at the one site where it
occurs in Florida, but widespread in Central America (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Population trends are not reported.
Status:
Though this species is widespread in Central America, it is found in just one site in Florida. The
state of Florida lists it as endangered as it is considered highly rare (Ward et al. 2003). In Florida,
it is ranked as critically imperiled (N1) by NatureServe (2008).
Habitat destruction:
Habitat destruction is a factor in the decline of many epiphytic orchids in the Southern U.S.,
including Epidendrum strobiliferum (McCartney 1985). Development, pollution and siltation
generated by agriculture or industry, and logging are among the primary drivers of habitat
destruction within this species' range.
Overutilization:
This species is threatened by overexploitation by orchid collectors (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that few occurrences are appropriately protected or managed: one
population occurs within Fahkahatchee Strand State Preserve in southern Florida. It is listed as
endangered by the state of Florida, but this designation does not protect the species from habitat
destruction, a primary threat to its survival.
Other factors:
Because the range of this species within the U.S. is already so limited, fragmentation or
destruction of suitable habitat is enormously harmful: isolated, small populations are vulnerable to
stochastic extinction events and inbreeding depression. E. strobiliferum also appears to be

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 409

 something of a habitat specialist, which makes the protection of its preferred habitat all the more
imperative (NatureServe 2008).
References:
McCartney, Chuck. 1985. South Florida's epiphytic orchids - how healthy are they? Palmetto,
Summer 1985, p. 3-5.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed
November 25, 2009.
Ward, D., Austin, D., and N. Coile. 2003. Endangered and threatened plants of Florida, ranked in
order of rarity. Castanea 68: 160-174.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 410

 Scientific Name:
Epioblasma triquetra
Common Name:
Snuffbox
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NE - Not evaluated

Range:
The snuffbox is a freshwater mussel species endemic to the eastern United States and Canada. It
has experienced a drastic reduction in range in recent decades; historically widespread in the
upper Mississippi and Ohio River drainages and throughout the Tennessee River system, it is now
limited to a much smaller range. Fewer than 50 reproducing populations are known, and the
majority of remaining populations are small and geographically isolated (R.J. Neves as cited in
NatureServe 2008). Populations are currently known in Alabama (Paint Rock River, Mirarchi
2004, Williams et al. 2008), Arkansas (few sites with very small populations in the White, Spring,
and Strawberry Rivers, Harris and Gordon 1987, Harris et al. 1997), Illinois (short reach of the
Embarras River, Cummings and Mayer 1997), Indiana (few scattered populations within Wabash
River tributaries, Fisher 2006), Kentucky (sporadically found in the upper Green River, Cicerello
and Schuster 2003), Michigan (Clinton River, the southeastern portion of Lake Michigan, and the
Pine and Belle River basins, Trdan and Hoeh 1993, Strayer 1980, Badra and Goforth 2003),
Minnesota (lower St. Croix River, Sietman 2003), Missouri (Bourbeuse, Meramac, and St. Francis
Rivers, Oesch 1995), Mississippi (Tennessee River drainage, Jones et al. 2005), Ohio (Scioto River
tributaries, Big Darby Creek, Watters 1992, 1995), Ontario (Sydenham River, possible small population
in lower reaches of the Thames River, Metcalfe-Smith et al. 2003, Cudmore et al. 2004), Pennsylvania
(Muddy Creek in the Erie National Wildlife Refuge, Mohler et al. 2006), Tennessee (few areas
throughout the Clinch, Powell, North and South Fork Holston, lower Nolichucky, Little, Elk, Duck,
Cumberland, Obey, and Tennessee Rivers, Parmalee and Bogan 1998), West Virginia (locations
unreported), and Wisconsin (Wolf and St. Croix drainages, WI NHP 2007 as cited in NatureServe
2008). It is likely extirpated from New York, though two empty shells (the first state records since
1950) were recently collected in the Towanda Creek Basin (Strayer and Jirka 1997, Marangelo and
Strayer 2000).
Habitat:
The snuffbox is generally found in medium-sized and large rivers with swift current and rock or
sand substrate, often buried in the river bottom (Baker 1928). It is intolerant of poor water
quality: the sites where it remains show little disturbance to substrate or nearby riparian areas
(NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Known glochidial host species include the Ozark sculpin, Cottus hypselarus, blackspotted
topminnow, Fundulus olivaceous, banded sculpin, Cottus Carolina, blackside darter, Percina
maculata, mottled sculpin, Cottus bairdi, and the logperch, Percina caprodes (Hill 1986, Sherman
1993, Yeager and Saylor 1995, Hove et al. 1998, 2003, Hillegrass and Hove 1997, Barnhart and
Baird 1998, Hove et al. 2000, Hove and Kapuscinski 1998, Watters et al. 2005).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 411

 Populations:
There are less than 50 extant reproducing occurrences of this mussel; NatureServe (2008) reports that
"several dozen occurrences remain." Total population size is unknown, but it is thought that there are at
least 2500 individuals. This mussel has become "increasingly rare" and many remaining populations are
small (NatureServe 2008). The extant distribution of the snuffbox is widespread, but greatly fragmented.
NatureServe (2008) states: "It was historically widespread in the Midwest. . . In Minnesota, this species
has been extirpated from the Mississippi River below St. Anthony Falls (Sietman, 2003). It was recently
documented in the Fox River basin in Illinois by a single weathered valve in Nippersink Creek with no
specimens on the Wisconsin side of the basin (Schanzle et al., 2004). The species has not been collected
alive in New York (historically known from Niagara River, Lake Erie, Buffalo River) since 1950
(Strayer and Jirka, 1997) but spent shells have been found recently. Historically in Canada it occurred in
Ontario in Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, the Thames, Grand, Niagara, Ausable, and Saudenham Rivers but
has been extirpated from all but the latter two (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey, 2004)."
Population Trends:
Numerous sources report that this species has experienced major reductions in overall range and
abundance and that declines are continuing (e.g., NatureServe 2008, Parmalee and Bogan 1998).
NatureServe (2008) estimates that this species has declined by up to 50 percent in the long-term
and by up to 30 percent in the short-term. The long-term viability of most populations is
questionable.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the snuffbox as critically imperiled in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin,
imperiled in Minnesota, West Virginia, and Ontario, vulnerable in Tennessee, and reports that it is
extirpated from Kansas and New York. It is listed as endangered in Indiana, Kentucky, Virginia,
West Virginia, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, and Wisconsin, and as threatened in Ohio and rare
in Missouri (Cummings and Mayer 1992). It is endangered in Canada. It is ranked as threatened by
the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Across its range, the habitat of the snuffbox is threatened by many factors. Impoundments reduce
water flow that is necessary for essential physiological activities such as feeding, waste removal,
and reproduction, and may also reduce dissolved oxygen levels, increase siltation, disrupt
population connectivity, and interfere with host-fish dispersal and migration (NatureServe 2008).
Many sources cite impoundment as a threat to this species (Carman and Goforth 2000, Kentucky
Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2005, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources 2006).
The snuffbox is also known to be threatened by habitat fragmentation, dredging, channelization,
riparian zone removal for agriculture, forestry, or development, gravel and sand mining, coal
mining, oil and gas drilling, grazing, and recreation (Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 2005,
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2005, Michigan Dept. of Natural
Resources 2006, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 2010).
This species is also threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005). Mountaintop
removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause significant downstream and groundwater
pollution. Pollutants associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota
(Palmer et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders of aquatic
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 412

 macroinvertebrates (Wood 2009).
Concerning threats to this mussel in Pennsylvania, for example, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission (2010) states: “[T]he lock and dam system in the Allegheny and Ohio Rivers,
combined with maintenance/commercial sand and gravel dredging have destroyed Snuffbox
habitat, eliminated habitat continuity and genetically isolated upstream subpopulations from other
subpopulations. Large impoundments such as the Allegheny Reservoir, Pymatuning Reservoir and
Shenango River Lake have also destroyed Snuffbox habitat and eliminated genetic/host
connectivity to downstream subpopulations. . . Sedimentation from oil and gas developments,
forestry and agricultural practices could have an adverse effect on mussel/host interactions. The
Snuffbox uses a unique strategy (fish capture) to lure hosts and transmit glochidia (parasitic larvae
phase of freshwater mussels). Excessive turbidity associated with increased sedimentation would
likely alter host numbers or behavior and reduce Snuffbox recruitment.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though some populations occur in areas that are ostensibly protected by designation as a wildlife
sanctuary or natural area, even these protected areas are not immune to watershed-level
disturbances (e.g., pollution, siltation, impoundment, or diversion) and should not be considered
adequate to restore or sustain effective populations.
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the snuffbox from the habitat loss and
degradation that endangers it. Though this mussel is listed by several states, these designations do
not provide regulatory protection for the species' habitat.
Other factors:
Several other factors threaten the continued existence of the snuffbox. Water pollution is a dire
threat to this species. Known causes of pollution in snuffbox habitat include siltation from
impoundments, logging, agriculture, dredging, mining, and development, chemical pollution from
mining, urban runoff, and agriculture, waste water discharge, and accidental chemical spills, and
nutrient loading from grazing, confined animal feeding operations, and urban development (Carman
and Goforth 2000, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 2005, Kentucky Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resources 2005, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources 2006). Acute or chronic pollution
events could destroy isolated populations of this species (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission 2010).
Invasive species, such as the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, and the Asian clam, Corbicula
fluminea, also threaten the snuffbox (Neves 1999, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources 2006,
NatureServe 2008). Zebra mussels are known to have destroyed the Lake Erie subpopulation and to
have colonized the Allegheny River, Ohio River. and French Creek. Ongoing snuffbox mortality
from zebra mussel infestation is expected (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 2010).
Declines in glochidial host species may threaten the snuffbox in parts of its range (Carman and
Goforth 2000, NatureServe 2008).
The snuffbox is also threatened by stochastic genetic and environmental events due to isolated
population distribution, small population size, and low gene flow (Kentucky Department of Fish
and Wildlife Resources 2005, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 2010).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 413

 References:
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan, Species Account.
Accessed April 2, 2010 at: http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/14a_mussel.pdf
Baker, F.C. 1928. The freshwater Mollusca of Wisconsin: Part II. Pelecypoda. Bulletin of the
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, University of Wisconsin, 70(2): 1-495.
Carman, S.M. and R.R. Goforth. 2000. Special animal abstract for Epioblasma triquetra
(snuffbox). Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 2
pp. http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/abstracts/zoology/Epioblasma_triquetra.pdf
Cudmore, B., C.A. MacKinnon, and S.E. Madzia. 2004. Aquatic species at risk in the Thames
River watershed, Ontario. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2707:
123 pp.
Fisher, B.E. 2006. Current status of freshwater mussels (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash River
drainage of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 115(2): 103-109.
Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1987. Distribution and status of rare and endangered mussels
(Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of
Science, 41: 49-56.
Hill, D.M. 1986. Cumberlandian mollusk conservation program, activity 3: identification of fish
hosts. Office of Natural Resources and Economic Development, Tennessee Valley Authority,
Knoxville, Tennessee. 55 pp.
Hillegass, K.R. and M.C. Hove. 1997. Suitable fish hosts for glochidia of three freshwater
mussels: strange floater, ellipse, and snuffbox. Triannual Unionid Report, 1
Hove, M., M. Berg, K. Dietrich, C. Gonzales, D. Hornbach, K. Juleen, M. Ledford, M. Marzec,
M. McGill, C. Nelson, B.J. Ritger, J. Selander, and A. Kapuscinski. 2003. High school students
participate in snuffbox host suitability trials. Ellipsaria, 5(3): 19-20.
Hove, M.C., K.R. Hillegas, J.E. Kurth, V.E. Pepi, C.J. Lee, K.A. Knudsen, A.R. Kapuscinski, P.A.
Mohoney, and M.M. Bomier. 2000. Considerations for conducting host suitability studies. Pages
27-34 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S.
Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings. Part I. Proceedings of the
Conservation, Captive Care and Propagation of Freshwater Mussels Symposium. Ohio
Biological Survey Special Publication, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.
Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia:
Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2005. Kentucky's Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed April 2, 2010 at:
http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/Volume%20II/Bivalvia/Bivalvia.htm#964
Marangelo, P.J. and D.L. Strayer. 2000. The freshwater mussels of the Tonawanda Creek basin in
western New York. Walkerana, 11(25): 97-106.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., J. Di Maio, S.K. Staton, and S.R. De Solla. 2003. Status of the freshwater
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 414

 mussel communities of the Sydenham River, Ontario, Canada. American Midland Naturalist,
150: 37-50.
Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. 2006. Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan. Threats to
Aquatic Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Accessed April 1, 2010 at:
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/publications/pdfs/HuntingWildlifeHabitat/WCS/Threats/SGCN_By_A
quatic_Threat.pdf
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 p
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
November 9, 2009)
Neves, R. 1999. Conservation and commerce: management of freshwater mussel (Bivalvia:
Unionoidea) resources in the United States. Malacologia 41: 461-474.
Oesch, R.D. 1995. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Second edition.
Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri. viii + 271 pp.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2010. Rules and Regulations Title 58 Code CH. 75 40
Pa.B. 620. Saturday January 30, 2010. Accessed April 2, 2010 at:
www.fish.state.pa.us/rulemakings/208finp.pdf
Sietman, B. E. 2003. Field guide to the freshwater mussels of Minnesota. Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 144 pp.
Strayer, D. 1980. The freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of the Clinton River, Michigan,
with comments on man's impact on the fauna, 1870-1978. The Nautilus. 94(4): 142-149.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 415

 Watters, G.T. 1992. Distribution of the Unionidae in south central Ohio. Malacology Data Net,
3(1-4): 56-90.
Watters, G.T. 1992. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography, 19:
481-490.
Watters, G.T., T. Menker, S. Thomas, and K. Luehnl. 2005. Host identifications or
confirmations. Ellipsaria, 7(2): 11-1
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 416

 Scientific Name:
Erimystax harryi
Common Name:
Ozark Chub
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Vulnerable
Range:
The Ozark chub occurs in the St. Francis and White river drainages of southern Missouri and
northern Arkansas. The Current and Jack Fork rivers are considered to be this species' stronghold
(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This fish generally occurs in large, medium-gradient, moderately clear streams and rivers with
clean gravel bottom where it prefers riffle, run, and flowing pool habitats over gravel or rubble
(Page and Burr 1991). It is often found in shoal areas with moderate flow (Lee et al. 1980).
Populations:
In Arkansas, Robison and Buchanan (1988) mapped approximately 44 collection sites for this fish
from 1960-1987. In Missouri, Pflieger (1997) mapped 45-50 collection sites. Total population
size is unknown. This fish is reported as common in appropriate habitat.
Population Trends:
The Ozark chub has declined in the short-term by 10-30 percent (NatureServe 2008). In
Missouri, it was formerly widespread in most of the larger streams in the southern Ozarks, but
drastic declines have occurred in the White, Black, and St. Francis rivers since dams were erected
(Pfleiger 1997).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) categorizes this species as vulnerable in Arkansas and as not rated in
Missouri. It is classified as vulnerable by the American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008) due
to habitat loss and degradation.
Habitat destruction:
Impoundment is a primary threat to the Ozark chub. Drastic population declines occurred in the
White, Black, and St. Francis rivers in Missouri following construction of reservoirs (Pfleiger
1997). The chub is intolerant of turbidity and siltation (Robison and Buchanan 1988) and
remaining populations are thus threatened by a variety of activities. The Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission (2005) report that this fish is threatened by sedimentation from grazing, resource
extraction, and road construction. The Missouri Dept. of Conservation (2010) reports that fish in
the White River watershed are threatened by urbanization, livestock grazing, gravel mining, and
reservoir operations. Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss and degradation as a threat to this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this species.
Other factors:
The chub is threatened by water pollution from siltation (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 417

 References:
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005. Arkansas Special Concern Species. Accessed
March 11, 2010 at: http://www.nanfa.org/misc/arkansas_special_concern_species.pdf
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Missouri Department of Conservation. 2010. White River Watershed Inventory and Assessment,
Biotic Communities. Accessed March 10, 2010 at:
http://www.mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/documents/whriver/hardcopy/390bctxt.pdf
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Pflieger, W. L. 1997. Fishes of Missouri. Revised Edition. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.
Robison, H. W., and T. M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press,
Fayetteville, Arkansas. 536 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 418

 Scientific Name:
Eriocaulon koernickianum
Common Name:
Small-headed Pipewort
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Also known as the dwarf pipewort or gulf pipewort, E. koernickianum is restricted to small areas of the
Interior Highlands portion of Arkansas and Oklahoma, adjacent coastal plains of Oklahoma and Texas,
and a disjunct area of the Georgia Piedmont. In Texas, this species is reported from Anderson,
Henderson, Limestone, van Zandt, and Gillespie Counties (extirpated from Brazos County, Poole et al.
2007). In Oklahoma, there are current reports from Pushmataha and Atoka Counties (extirpated from
Muskogee County), in Arkansas, it is found in Calhoun, Frankling, Johnson, Madison, Pope, Saline, and
Van Buren Counties (believed extirpated from Benton, Conway, Logan, Montgomery, and Pulaski
Counties), and in Georgia, E. koernickianum is considered extant in Clarke, DeKalb, Greene, Gwinnett,
Hancock, Meriwether, Newton, Rockdale, and Walton Counties (NatureServe 2008, Smith 1988, Jones
and Coile 1988).
Habitat:
Habitat usage varies across the pipewort's range; in Georgia, this species is found in seeps and wet
depressions in granite outcroppings, and in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, it is most often noted
in sandy hillside seepage areas, along bog margins, and less often along prairie streambanks.
Considered an early successional species, it rarely establishes among dense vegetation, prefers
open sites maintained by fire or drought, and is intolerant of shade.
Ecology:
This plant is either an annual or weak perennial, and reproduces by seed only. It appears to be
somewhat fire-maintained, at least in the western portion of its range (Watson et al. 1994).
Populations:
Approximately 47 occurrences of this species are believed to be currently extant; 21 historical
occurrences could not be confirmed by recent surveys and are therefore considered extirpated. The
majority of remaining populations are found in Arkansas and Georgia. Populations are highly variable
in size, those in Arkansas are small, while in Oklahoma, E. koernickianum may be locally abundant
under suitable conditions.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) determined that this species is relatively stable in the short-term, but roughly
one-third of historical occurrences have not been recently confirmed, and threats to its long-term
persistence are substantial.
Status:
This species is considered vulnerable based on its reliance on disturbance, low genetic variability,
and low recruitment at some sites. NatureServe (2008) ranks E. koernickianum as critically
imperiled in Georgia, Oklahoma, and Texas, and imperiled in Arkansas. It is state listed as
endangered in Arkansas, as a species of special concern in Georgia, and was previously a federal
candidate species.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 419

 Habitat destruction:
Threats to this species' habitat include drainage, impoundment, or other hydrological alterations,
fire suppression, and residential and agricultural development (NatureServe 2008). Fire
suppression has been linked with population loss in Oklahoma (Watson et al. 1994). Off-road
vehicle (ORV) recreation is a threat in some places (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Many occurrences of this species are found within the Ozark National Forest, and these may be
protected if properly managed. In other locations, no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately
protect this species.
References:
Jones, S.B., Jr., and N.C. Coile. 1988. The distribution of the vascular flora of Georgia. Dept.
Botany, Univ. Georgia, Athens. 230 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 22, 2010)
Smith, E.B. 1988. An atlas and annotated list of the vascular plants of Arkansas. Second edition.
Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville. 489 pp.
Watson, L. E., G. E. Uno, N. A. McCarty, and A. B. Kornkven. 1994. Conservation biology of a
rare plant species, Eriocaulon kornickianum (Eriocaulaceae). American Journal of Botany 81(8):
980-986.
Watson, L.E. 1989. Status survey of Eriocaulon kornickianum, dwarf pipewort, in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory, Norman. 10 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 420

 Scientific Name:
Eriocaulon nigrobracteatum
Common Name:
Black-bract Pipewort
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This recently described species is endemic to the Gulf Coastal Lowlands in the east-central
Florida panhandle: natural heritage records indicate the species is present in Bay, Calhoun, and
Gulf Counties (NatureServe 2008, Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants 2008).
Habitat:
This species is restricted to deep sapric soils within acidic mires; little wood or Sphagnum moss
is present in the muck it seems to prefer. Within these fen habitats, black-bract pipewort is
abundant in water-saturated areas (Orzell and Bridges 1993).
Ecology:
E. nigrobracteatum is a perennial herb that forms dense clumps of short, linear leaves. It blooms
in March and April (NatureServe 2008). This species reproduces vegetatively.
Populations:
Eleven occurrences are reported in Orzell and Bridges (1993). Total global population size is not
reported, but NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are fewer than 2500 individuals rangewide.
Population Trends:
Population trends are unreported but based on habitat loss and degradation, this species is likely in
decline (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This species is endemic to a small range in the Florida panhandle, within which it occupies a
narrow range of environmental conditions. NatureServe (2008) ranks the black-bract pipewort as
critically imperiled. It is also state-listed as endangered in Florida.
Habitat destruction:
Anthropogenic alteration of habitat or area surrounding habitat is detrimental to this species:
diversions or dams, pollution, and siltation generated by agriculture, industry, or development are
among the primary threats to the black-bract pipewort and its habitat (NatureServe 2008). This
species may be shaded out by shrubby undergrowth that is able to establish because of fire
suppression or other anthropogenic changes to habitat.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that no occurrences are appropriately protected or managed, and it
seems clear that no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the black-bract pipewort.
Though it is listed as endangered in Florida, this designation offers the species no substantial
regulatory protections and cannot be deemed sufficient to ensure persistence or recovery.
Other factors:
The pipewort is threatened by siltation from a variety of activities.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 421

 References:
Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants. 2008. Eriocaulon nigrobracteatum. Published online by the
Institute for Systematic Botany <<http://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/Plant.aspx?id=1079>>
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 4, 2009 ).
Orzell, S.L., and E.L. Bridges. 1993. Eriocaulon nigrobracteatum (Eriocaulaceae), a new species
from the Florida panhandle, with a characterization of its poor fen habitat. Phytologia 74(2):
104-124.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 422

 Scientific Name:
Etheostoma bellator
Common Name:
Warrior Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Vulnerable
Range:
The warrior darter is endemic to the Black Warrior River system above the Fall Line in the Sipsi
Fork, Mullberry Fork, Locust Fork and Valley Creek (Boschung and Mayden 2004). In the Locust
Fork, the warrior darter is "currently only known from three miles of Mill Creek" and recent
efforts to collect the species in two historic locations were unsuccesful (Kuhajda 2004). In the
Sipsi Fork, it is known only from the Fork itself and three tributaries and is presumed extirpated
in the lower Sipsi Fork by Lewis Smith Reservoir (Ibid.)
Habitat:
The warrior darter occurs in small and medium sized streams with bedrock, cobble, or gravel
substrates and slack to fast currents (Boschung and Mayden 2004).
Populations:
Boschung and Mayden (2004) mapped approximately 20-30 locations within the warrior darter's
highly limited range. It is very uncommon in collections (SFC and CBD 2010).
Population Trends:
Current information on population trend is not available.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) classifies the warrior darter as imperiled. Jelks et al. (2008) list it as
vulnerable. Boschung and Mayden (2004) conclude that because "much of the warrior darter's
limited habitat is in industrial and suburban areas," the species should be granted "special concern
status."
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) concludes that the warrior darter is "threatened by habitat alteration and
modification due to development and impoundments." Jelks et al. (2008) classify the warrior
darter as vulnerable because of the present or threatened destruction, modification or reduction of
habitat or range. Boschung and Mayden (2004) note that the warrior darters limited habitat is
predominated by suburban and industrial areas. Dewatering of streams is a problem, for example
populations in Five-Mile Creek were severely impacted by a quarry that dewatered the stream
(SFC and CBD 2010). Development from Birmingham threatens a number of populations, as
does sod farming in a portion of range (Ibid.) Kuhajda (2008) noted that Mill Creek has
"sedimentation problems associated with agriculture and urbanization," and that Sipsi Fork and
primarily its tributaries suffers from "some sedimentation associated with poor forestry
management."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The warrior darter is not protected by any law or regulation and is not currently the subject of any
major conservation efforts.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 423

 Other factors:
The warrior darter is vulnerable because of a narrow, restricted range (Jelks et al. 2008).
References:
Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. [In press]. Fishes of Alabama. University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama. [Expected publication date of 1997.]
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Kuhajda, B. 2004. Locust Fork Darter. In Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee and P.E.
O'Neil (eds.). Alabama Wildlife Volume Two: Imperiled Aquatic Mussels and Fihses. Unversity
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Kuhajda, B. 2004. Sipsi Fork Darter. In Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee and P.E.
O'Neil (eds.). Alabama Wildlife Volume Two: Imperiled Aquatic Mussels and Fihses. Unversity
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.
Suttkus R.D. and R.M. Bailey. 1993. Etheostoma colorosum and E. bellator, two new darters,
subgenus Ulocentra, from southeastern United States. Tulane Studies in Zoology and Botany
29(1): 1-28.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 424

 Scientific Name:
Etheostoma brevirostrum
Common Name:
Holiday Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered
Range:
The holiday darter actually represents a species complex including as many as five distinct forms
that are all endemic to the upper Coosa River system of Georgia, Alabama and southeastern
Tennessee (Page and Burr 1991, Etnier and Starnes 1993, Boschung and Mayden 2004, Georgia
DNR 2009). One form of this darter occurs in Alabama in Shoal Creek and three springs in the
Choccolocco Creek system (Boschung and Mayden 2004, Pierson 2004, Freeman and Hagler
2009). The four other forms are found in Georgia in the upper Conasauga system, upper
Coosawattee system, and upper Etowah River system (Freeman and Hagler 2009). In the Etowah,
one form is found in the upper Etowah River and its tributaries, and another in Amicalola Creek
and its tributaries (Ibid.) These various forms likely qualify as distinct population segments and
should be considered as such.
The species was recently determined to have dissapeared from lower Shoal Creek in Alabama
(Pierson 2004).
Habitat:
The holiday darter occurs in small creeks to moderate sized rivers with cool, clear water and
bedrock and gravel substrates, where it is frequently associated with lush growths of river weed
(Etnier and Starnes 1993, Boschung and Mayden 2004).
Populations:
A recent review considered the holiday darter to be uncommon in its limited range in the Coosa
River System of Alabama and rare in the upper Coosa of Tennessee and Georgia (Boschung and
Mayden 2004). Freeman and Hagler (2009) observed that the species can be locally abundant in
the Etowah and Conasauga River systems.
The following summary of population status comes from SFC and CBD (2010):
"1) The nominal population in Shoal Creek used to extend down into Chocolocco Creek; existing
Shoal Creek populations are fragmented by two or three small impoundments in the Talladega
National Forest. It has been relatively common at the type locality since at least 1992. 2) It is
moderately common in tributaries and patchily distributed in the mainstem Conasauga River;
abundance increases above agricultural areas adjacent to the Cherokee National Forest, TN and
upstream into the Chattahoochee National forest, GA. 3) The Coosawattee River population
occurs in tributaries above Cartersville Reservoir, NW of Ellijay in upper half of Mountaintown
Creek, including the tributary Bear Creek where it is relatively common in limited portions of the
creek, and NE of Ellijay in Turniptown and lower Little Turniptown Creeks, and in Rock Creek,
but is absent from tributaries of the Cartecay River SE of Ellijay. Total range in the Coosawattee
is limited and tributary populations may be fragmented, possibly be reduced water quality of the
Ellijay and Cartecay rivers. 4) The Amicalola Creek system population is the most abundant of the
five allopatric populations; it is relatively common in tributaries. 5) The uppermost mainstem
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 425

 Etowah River population is the most restricted population; darters are relatively uncommon,
patchily distributed and have a limited range occurring in ca 12-15 stream miles total."
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) classify as declining to stable, noting that "trends appear to be highly variable
or unknown with some populations declining or possibly extirpated and others possibly stable."
Boschung and Mayden (2004) note that "prime habitat" for the holiday darter in Shoals Creek was
destroyed by impoundment.
Status:
Jelks et al. (2008) list the holiday darter as endangered in Amicalola and Shoal Creeks, and in the
Conasauga, Coosawattee, and Etowah Rivers. Boschung and Mayden (2004) recommend that the
species should be of special concern in Alabama. NatureServe (2008) list it as critically
imperiled in Alabama and Tennessee and imperiled in Georgia. Etnier and Starnes (1993) state
that because of the holiday darter's "restricted range in small portions of only three states, it is
likely a candidates for future consideration for Federal protected status." Georgia DNR (2009)
consider the species endangered in the state. In Alabama, Pierson (2004) warned that "any further
decline in distribution, or reduction in population size, would make species a likely candidate for
some level of federal protection." At a metting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for
Biological Diversity, there was general support for listing the holiday darter as endangered (SFC
and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
Jelks et al. (2008) list several populations as endangered based on the present or threatened
destruction, modification or curtailment of habitat or range. NatureServe (2008) states that the
holiday darter is threatened by logging, road building, impoundments, and any activities which
remove riparian cover. Urban sprawl is rampant throughtout its range, including houses right
along the Coosawatee (SFC and CBD 2010). Freeman and Hagler (2009) identified a number of
threats to the holiday darter, stating:
"potential threats to the holiday darter are habitat loss due to excess silt and sediment runoff,
reduced water quality and stream impoundment. The holiday darter is a montane species, and poor
riparian management practices, including inadequate implementation of Forestry Best
Management Practices (BMPs), pose a significant threat to the species. Sedimentation may also
result from failure to control erosion from construction sites and bridge crossings. Holiday
darters require clean cobble or other stable substrate for spawning, thus excess sediment could
inhibit spawning success. Stream degradation results from increased stormwater runoff from
developing urban and industrial areas."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) observes that few to several occurrences of the holiday darter are
appropriately protected. The species is listed as a priority one species of greatest conservation
need in Alabama, as threatened in Tennessee, and as endangered in Georgia. None of these
designations, however, provide substantial protection for the species or its habtiats.
Other factors:
Jelks et al. (2008) list several populations as endangered because of a narrow, restricted range.
This fish is also threatened by water pollution, primarily siltation (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 426

 References:
Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.
Freeman, B., and M. Hagler. 2009. Species account for holiday darter. Protected Animals of
Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division. Social
Circle, Georgia.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Pierson, J.M.. 2004. Holiday Darter. In Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee and P.E.
O'Neil (eds.). Alabama Wildlife Volume Two: Imperiled Aquatic Mussels and Fishes. Unversity
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 427

 Scientific Name:
Etheostoma cinereum
Common Name:
Ashy Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The ashy darter is patchily distributed in the Tennessee, Cumberland, and Duck Rivers in Kentucky
and Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993). It has been extirpated from Georgia, Alabama, and
Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). NatureServe (2008) reports that ashy darters have been
found in the Big South Fork and Rockcastle rivers in the Cumberland River Watershed in
Kentucky and Tennessee, and Buffalo, Little, Emory, and Elk rivers in the Tennessee River
Watershed. Powers et al. (2004) noted that degradation of habitats has "fragmented the range of
E. cinereum into several disjunct populations and eliminated it from many historical localities"
and further that populations inhabitating the Cumberland, Duck, and upper Tennessee River
drainages show genetic and morphological differences warranting recognition of separate
management units. Given these differences it is clear that any one of these units could be
considered either a distinct population segment or a significant portion of range.
Habitat:
The ashy darter inhabits clear flowing small to moderate streams, where it appears to require
clean gravel and rubble substrates, pools with some current, and cover from undercut banks,
boulders or vegetation (Lee et al. 1980, Etnier and Starnes 1993, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994).
Populations:
Powers et al. (2004) report that recent collections of the ashy darter have been restricted to seven
river reaches with single specimens found in two additional rivers. Of the three management
units, the ashy darter is most in trouble in the upper Tennessee (Powers et al. 2004).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports substantial to moderate long term declines, citing Shepard and Burr
(1984) to conclude that it "has been extirpated or nearly extirpated from about half of the tributary
systems in which it is known to have been extant during the past few decades." Powers et al.
(2004) report that between 1993 and 2002, ashy darter in Little River, Tennessee declined from
being quite common to "very rare" and identify urbanization as the likely reason.
Status:
Powers et al. (2004) conclude that "The rarity of this species and apparent extirpation from the
majority of its former range caused it to be considered threatened in Tennessee (Etnier and
Starnes, 1993), a species of special concern in Kentucky (Kentucky State Nature Preserves
Commission, 2000), threatened throughout its range by Warren et al. (2000), and a category II
candidate species prior to the elimination of the category by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Federal Register, 1996)." NatureServe (2008) lists the species as vulnerable in Kentucky,
imperiled in Tennessee and critically imperiled in Virginia. AFS (2008) list this species as
endangered and declining in the lower Tennessee River, endangered in the upper Tennessee, and
vulnerable in the Duck and upper Cumberland.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 428

 Etnier and Starnes (1993) listed the largest populations as being in Big South Fork and Buffalo
Rivers in the Tennessee River system. In the Emory and Elk rivers, only single specimens were
found, indicating "very small populations may exist there" (see Powers et al. 2004). It is likely
that additional populations were extirpated prior to discovery (Etnier and Starnes 1993).
Habitat destruction:
Powers et al. (2004) observe that "habitat degradation is widespread throughout the range of E.
cinereum and has caused fragmentation into small populations with linear distributions." The ashy
darter's dependence on pools with flow makes it particularly sensitive to impoundment and
pollution, particularly siltation (Etnier and Starnes 1993). Given these habitat dependencies, the
species has experienced substantial declines in response to extensive impoundment and severe
siltation related to agriculture, logging and urban sprawl and is now found in a limited number of
isolated populations that continue to be threatened by these and other factors (Etnier and Starnes
1993, Powers et al. 2004, NatureServe 2008).
Jelks et al. (2008) lists this fish as endangered and vulnerable because of the "present or
threatened destruction, modification, or reduction of a taxon’s habitat or range."
The ashy darter is also threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005). Mountaintop
removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause significant downstream pollution. Pollutants
associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota (Palmer et al.
2010). Elevated selenium concentrations downstream of mountaintop removal operations can
cause teratogenic deformities in larval fish (Palmer et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal operations
can extirpate entire orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates, eliminating food sources for fish
(Wood 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) noted that "few (1-3) occurrences" are appropriately protected, identifying
protection for only the populations in the Big South Fork River, which receives some protection in
the "Big South Fork National Rivers and Recreation Area" and in the Emory and Obed River
systems in Tennessee, which receive some protection in the Obed National Wild and Scenic River.
The ashy darter is listed as a secies of greatest conservation need in Kentucky and as threatened by
the state of Tennessee. Neither of these designations provide regulatory protection for the darter's
habitat.
Other factors:
AFS (2008) lists the ashy darter as vulnerable and endangered because of "a narrowly restricted
range." This fish is also threatened by pollution from a variety of sources (Etnier and Starnes
1993).
References:
Bart, H. L., Jr., and L. M. Page. 1992. The influence of size and phylogeny on life history
variation in North American percids. Pages 553-572 in R. L. Mayden, editor. Systematics,
historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford,
Calfiornia. xxvi + 969 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 429

 Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky. 177 pp.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.
Page, L. M. 1983. Handbook of Darters. T. F. H. Pub., Inc., Neptune City, New Jersey. 271 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Powers, S. L., and R. L. Mayden. 2002. Threatened fishes of the world: Etheostoma cinereum
Storer, 1845 (Percidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 63:264.
Powers, S. L., R. L. Mayden, and D. A. Etnier. 2004. Conservation genetics of the ashy darter,
Etheostoma cinereum (Percidae: subgenus Allohistium), in the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers
of the southeastern United States. Copeia 2004:632-637.
Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott.
1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American
Fisheries Society, Special Publishing 20. 183 pp.
Rohde, F. C., et al. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 222 pp.
Shepard, T. E., and B. M. Burr. 1984. Systematics, status, and life history aspects of the ashy
darter, ETHEOSTOMA CINEREUM (Pisces: Percidae). Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 97:693715.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 430

 Warren, M. L., Jr., B. M. Burr, S. J. Walsh, H. L. Bart, Jr., R. C. Cashner, D. A. Etnier, B. J.
Freeman, B. R. Kuhajda, R. L. Mayden, H. W. Robison, S. T. Ross, and W. C. Starnes. 2000.
Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern
United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-31.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 431

 Scientific Name:
Etheostoma forbesi
Common Name:
Barrens Darter
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The barrens darter is limited to a small number of tributaries of the Barren Fork and lower Collins
River in Tennessee and may have occurred formerly in the adjacent Duck River system (Page et
al. 1992, Etnier and Starnes 1993, NatureServe et al. 2008).
Habitat:
The barrens darter inhabits pools and gently flowing riffles in small streams with cobble
substrates (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Hansen et al. 2006)
Populations:
The barrens darter is likely one of the rarest freshwater fishes in North America (Page et al. 1992,
Hansen et al. 2006). Surveys in 1994 identified barrens darter at 11 sites in nine streams with the
largest population apparently in Charles Creek (Madison 1995). A 2004 survey of ten sites,
including nine of the 1994 sites, found the species in eight sites (Hansen et al. 2006). In contrast
to the 1994 survey, the species was found in low abundance in Charles Creek in 2004 and was not
found in two streams where it occurred in 1994 (Witty and Mud Creeks). Abundances were
generally low in both the 1994 and 2004 surveys (Madison 1995, Hansen et al. 2006).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) listed the barrens darter as having a stable short term trend based on surveys
by Madison (1995) and Hansen et al. (2006) and as having experienced a moderate to relatively
stable long term trend.
Status:
The barrens darter has a very restricted range, where it receives little protection and faces threats
from livestock grazing and agricultural water withdrawal and pollutiion (NatureServe 2008).
NatureServe (2008) lists it as critically imperiled and Jelks et al. (2008) list it as threatened.
Hansen et al. (2006) conclude "[d]ue to its restricted distribution, small population sizes, and
current threats, the Barrens darter warrants consideration for federal listing as an endangered
species." At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological Diversity,
there was agreement that the barrens darter should be listed as theatened (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
Jelks et al. (2008) classify this species as threatened due to habitat loss and degradation.
NatureServe (2008) describe increasing threat from agriculture, including increased groundwater
withdrawal that is leading to declining stream flows and degraded water quality from siltation and
pesticides. Madison (1995) reports that this fish is threatened by heavy silt loads at some sites
due to livestock grazing. Bergen et al. (2008) that a population in Mud Creek had low abundance
and that the stream appearerd to be "suboptimal" because of dewatering and poor water quality. A
gorwth in nurseries in the area has increased water demands and stream withdrawals (SFC and
CBD 2010).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 432

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) determined that no known locations are appropriately protected. The barrens darter
is listed as endangered in the state of Tennessee, but this designation does not provide any
protection for the species' habitat.
Other factors:
The barrens darter is potentially threatened by hybridization with the fringed darter (Hansen et al.
2006). AFS (2008) lists the barrens darter as threatened because of "a narrowly restricted range."
This species is threatened by pollution from agriculture and cattle grazing (Madison 1995,
NatureServe 2008).
References:
Bergen, D., D. Combs, and H. Mattingly. 2008. Distribution, status, hybridization, and habitat
relationships of the rare barrens darter, Etheostoma forbesi. Semi-annual status report,
cooperative agreement No. 401817J093. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Cookeville, TN.
Braasch, M. E., and R. L. Mayden. 1985. Review of the subgenus CATONOTUS (Percidae) with
descriptions of two new darters of the ETHEOSTOMA SQUAMICEPS species group. Univ.
Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Occas. Pap. 119. 83 pp.
Hansen, K. A., B. K. Jones, M. Laha, and H. T. Mattingly. 2006. Population status and nesting
biology of the rare Barrens darter, Etheostoma forbesi. American Midland Naturalist 155:63-69.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Layman, S. R., A. M. Simons, and R. M. Wood. 1993. Status of the dirty darter, Etheostoma
olivaceum, and bluemask darter, Etheostoma (Doration) sp., with notes on fishes of the Caney
Fork River System, Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 68(2):65-70.
Madison, L.M. 1995. Present distribution of rare Tennessee fish. Journal of the Tennessee Acad.
of Sci. 70(3-4):77-81.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.
Page, L. M., P. A. Ceas, D. L. Swofford, and D. G. Buth. 1992. Evolutionary relationships within
the Etheostoma squamiceps complex (Percidae; subgenus Catonotus) with descriptions of five
new species. Copeia 1992:615-46.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 433

 Scientific Name:
Etheostoma maculatum
Common Name:
Spotted Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The spotted darter is a small percid species that currently occurs in Indiana, Kentucky, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia in two waters of the Allegheny River Drainage, eight waters of
the Green River Drainage, one water of the Kanawha River Drainage, six waters of the Ohio River
Drainage, and two waters of the Wabash River Drainage (Mayasich et al. 2004). Historically, the
species also occurred in the Mahoning and Shonango Rivers, as well as presumably many other
waters in the above drainages where the species is presently absent (Ibid.) For example, the
species is absent from Big Walnut and Deer Creeks in the Ohio River drainage, portions of the
Barrens River and a portion of the Elk River, all in places where they had previously been
collected (Ibid.)
Habitat:
This species is found in small to medium-sized rivers in clear, high quality waters in habitat
characterized by cobbles or boulders in rapidly flowing, deep riffles (Lee et al. 1980, Page and
Burr 1991). Adults overwinter in deeper, slower waters (Kuehne and Barbour 1983).
Ecology:
This invertivorous species feeds primarily on caddisfly larvae and juvenile stoneflies, mayflies,
beetles, and water mites (Page 1983). Spawning occurs between late May and July, and females
may spawn several times in a season, laying eggs beneath stones in calm waters near their
preferred riffle habitat (Page 1983). Males guard developing eggs, and are highly territorial
(USFS 2005). Females become sexually mature at 2 years, and lifespan is estimated to be 4 years
at most (Page 1983, Kuehne and Barbour 1983, Bart and Page 1992).
Populations:
The spotted darter is still found in French Creek in the Allegheny Drainage, the Walhonding,
Olentangy, Blue, and Kokosing Rivers and Big Darby Creeks in the Ohio River, the Russell, Big
Pitman, Little Barren, Barren, Gasper and Green River itself and Drakes and Meadow Creeks in
the Green River Drainage, the Elk River in the Kanawha Drainage and the East Fork of the White
and Tippecanoe River in the Wabash River Drainage (Mayasich et al. 2004, Simon 2005). The
species is reported to be sporadic and uncommon throughout its range (Ibid.)
Population Trends:
The spotted darter is no longer found in a number of rivers and streams where it was formerly
recorded, including the Mahoning River, Muskingum, Licking, lower Kanawha, Shenango,
portions of the Barren and Scioto Rivers and Deer and Big Walnut creeks (Mayasich et al. 2004,
Simon 2005). Although one population in Big Darby Creek appears to be expanding, the spotted
darter is considered to be declining throughout its range (Simon 2005).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the spotted darter is critically imperiled in New York, Ohio, and
West Virginia, and imperiled in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. It is listed as endangered in

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 434

 Ohio, threatened in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and is a species of special
conservation concern in Indiana. Jelks et al. (2008) list the species as threatened and declining.
Habitat destruction:
As evidenced by the loss of many populations, the spotted darter is considered highly sensitive to
habitat degradation from sedimentation, impoundment, and channelization (Mayasich et al. 2004,
Simon 2005). Simon (2005), for example, concluded:
"The spotted darter occurs in moderate- to large rivers with coarse substrates such as gravel,
cobble, and boulder habitats and is extremely sensitive to siltation, which results from watershed
disturbance. The spotted darter is among the first darter species to disappear when siltation levels
increase (T.P. Simon, unpublished data). The species utilizes interstitial pore spaces for
reproduction around large cobble and boulders and seeks refuge from predators beneath rocks. As
embeddedness increases from siltation, pore spaces would be unavailable if covered by high silt
levels. Poor agricultural techniques, removal of riparian buffer strips along stream margins, and
tributary channelization represent the greatest source of increased silt loads in rivers containing
E. maculatum. Efforts to remove riffle, run, and pool habitats through activities aimed at
improving watershed drainage (i.e., channelization) and the removal of bottom substrates by
instream cobble and gravel mining could adversely affect the species. The species requires cobble
and boulder substrates for refuge. Removal of such habitat components would significantly
increase predation rates. Stream impoundment is another habitat alteration that represents a threat
to the spotted darter."
Mayasich et al. (2004) report that "reservoir construction on the Barren River and Green River
Lakes in Kentucky destroyed spotted darter habitat and fragmented populations in the Green
River." They also identified a number of threats for each state in the range of the spotted darter,
including impoundment and siltation in Kentucky, "siltation, pollution: animal waste, sewage plant
failure, agricultural runoff (pesticides and fertilizers)" in New York, water quality in Ohio, "water
quality, pollution: agricultural runoff" in Pennsylvania, and "siltation, pollution: domestic waste,
mine drainage, industrial discharge, animal waste, low dissolved oxygen" in West Virgina.
Spotted darters in West Virginia are also threatened by the sedimentation and contamination
caused by mountaintop removal, which is credited with the degradation and destruction of
approximately 2000 miles of stream habitat in Appalachia to date (US EPA 2005). Mountaintop
removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause significant downstream pollution. Pollutants
associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota (Palmer et al.
2010). Elevated selenium concentrations downstream of mountaintop removal operations can
cause teratogenic deformities in larval fish (Palmer et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal operations
can extirpate entire orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates, eliminating food sources for fish
(Wood 2009).
Consistent with all of the above, Jelks et al. (2008) classified the spotted darter as threatened
because of the present or threatened destruction, modification or reduction of habitat or range.
Disease or predation:
Impoundments alter habitat, and may make conditions more favorable for species that prey on the
spotted darter, such as the blackbasses, Micropterus spp., temperate basses, Morone spp., pikes,
Esox spp., sculpins, Cottus spp., and various minnow or sunfish species. If impoundments are
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 435

 large enough to support recreational fisheries, introduced game species may also be problematic
(Simon 2005). Invasive species have already harmed darter populations in Eastern waterways; the
introduction of the round goby, Neogobius melanostomus, to the Great Lakes has caused major
reductions in native darter populations (USFS 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
A portion of spotted darter populations occur in streams on the Hoosier and Allegheny National
Forests, where they are listed as sensitive species (Simon 2005). This designation, however, does
not provide protection for the spotted darter's habitat. Instead, it requires the Forest Service to
consider the impacts of their actions on the darter, but not to choose a benign alterantive or to stop
a project because of impacts to the species. Likewise, the darter is listed as endangered or
threatened in several states, but these designations do not provide regulatory protection for the
darter's habitat.
Other factors:
Remaining populations of spotted darter are small and isolated and therefore vulnerable to
stochastic extinction, inbreeding depression, and other perils that face small populations with low
genetic diversity (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Bart, H. L., Jr., and L. M. Page. 1992. The influence of size and phylogeny on life history
variation in North American percids. Pages 553-572 in R. L. Mayden, editor. Systematics,
historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford,
Calfiornia. xxvi + 969 pp
Bowers, N. J., J. R. Stauffer, and J. R. Pratt. 1992. The distribution, population status, and
ecology of ETHEOSTOMA MACULATUM Kirtland in upper French Creek, New York. Final
report to The Nature Conservancy, New York Field Office, Albany. 52 pp
Burr, Brooks M., and Melvin L. Warren, Jr. 1986. Distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes.
Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Scientific and Technical Series No. 4, Frankfort,
Kentucky. 398 pp
Cooper, E. L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky. 177 pp.
Mayasich, J. M., D. Grandmaison, and D. A. Etnier. 2004. Spotted darter status assessment.
NRRI Technical Report Number NRRI/TR 2004-02, Duluth, MN. For U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 436

 NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
November 9, 2009)
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Simon, T.P. 2005. Conservation assessment for the spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum).
USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. Accessed online April 13, 2010 and available at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/ca-overview/docs/Fish/Spotted%20Darter.pdf
Smith, C. L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York State. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. xi + 522 pp.
Stauffer, J.R., JR, J.M. Boltz, and L.R. White. 1995. The Fishes of West Virginia. The Academy
of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
Trautman, M. B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Second edition. Ohio State Univ. Press, Columbus.
782 pp
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2005. Mountaintop mining/valley fills in
Appalachia: final programmatic environmental impact statement. USEPA Region 3,
Philadelphia, PA. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 437

 Scientific Name:
Etheostoma microlepidum
Common Name:
Smallscale Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Vulnerable
Range:
The smallscale darter is found in the lower Cumberland River from Stones River to Little River in
Tennessee and Kentucky (Etnier and Williams 1989, NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The smallscale darter is typically found in fast riffles with gravel, boulder and rubble substrates in
generally shallow water (Etnier and Starnes 1993).
Populations:
Populations are found in the Stones, Little, Harpeth and Red River systems (Hendricks and
Timmons 2008, NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
There is no information available on population trends in smallscale darter.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) classifies the species as critically imperiled in Kentucky and imperiled in
Tennessee. The smallscale darter has a small range in tributaries of the lower Cumberland River
drainage, Tennessee and Kentucky, where urbanization and impoundments have impacted and
threaten populations (NatureServe 2008, SFC and CBD 2010). Jelks et al. (2008) list as
vulnerable. It is "deemed in need of management" in Tennessee and a "species of greatest
conservation need" in Kentucky. At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for
Biological Diversity, there was agreement that the smallscale darter should be listed as theatened
(SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
The smallscale darter is threatened by impoundment, urbanization and impaired water quality
(NatureServe 2008, SFC and CBD 2010). Percey Priest Reservoir, for example, has reduced
available habitat in the Stones River system and the Little River has undergone substantial
urbanization in recent decades and is considered impaired (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Hendricks
and Timmons 2008, SFC and CBD 2010).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are currently no regulatory protections for the smallscale darters.
References:
Etnier, D. A., and J. D. Williams. 1989. ETHEOSTOMA (NOTHONOTUS) WAPITI
(Osteichthyes: Percidae), a new darter from the southern bend of the Tennessee River system in
Alabama and Tennessee. Proceedings Biology Society Washington 102:987-1000.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 438

 Hendricks, S., and T. Timmons. 2008. Fish Species of the Little River Basin, Western
Kentucky, 2000–2003. Journal of the Kentucky Academy of Science 69(2):187-192.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 439

 Scientific Name:
Etheostoma osburni
Common Name:
Candy Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Vulnerable

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The candy darter occurs in the New River drainage in the Ridge and Valley province of Virginia
and the Appalachian Plateaus of West Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). In Virginia, it is
generally distributed only in Big Stony Creek, and may only occur above the gypsum plant at
Kimbalton. It has an extremely localized distribution in Laurel Fork of the Wolf Creek system,
and a very limited range in the New River.This fish is also known from Reed, Big Walker, Little
Stony, and Sinking creeks, and from Spruce and Pine runs, but there have been no recent
detections in these streams (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
Habitat:
This darter occurs in swiftly flowing water over stone and boulder substrates in cool montane
streams. It is associated with rocky, typically clear, cool to warm, small to large creeks. Adults
typically occur in silt-free runs, riffles, and swift pockets of current in and around large rubble
and boulders (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). It is also known from fast rubble riffles of small to
medium rivers (Page and Burr 1991). This darter may spawn in patches of sand in swift water
(Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
Populations:
Lee et al. (1980) mapped 29 collection sites for this species. Jenkins and Burkhead (1994)
mapped 18 sites in Virginia, representing at least several distinct occurrences, but the candy
darter may no longer be extant in some of those areas. The West Virginia Division of Natural
Resources (WVDNR) (2002) report around 40 collection sites in the state, not all of which
represent distinct occurrences. Total population size is unknown, but low numbers are estimated.
This darter is described as rare in both Virginia and West Virginia (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994,
WVDNR 2002, NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The candy darter is declining in the short-term (decline of 10-30 percent) and has experienced a
long-term decline of 25-75 percent (NatureServe 2008). Burkhead and Jenkins (1991) report that
the darter is much reduced or absent in most tributaries in Virginia where it was detected from
1940-1970. Chipps et al. (1993) report concern about the darter’s status in Deer Creek, Anthony
Creek, and the Williams River, and report declines in several streams which supported
populations in the late 1970s. Cincotta et al. (2000) report that this darter has been extirpated at
some sites, occurs only in low numbers at others, and is declining at some historic locations.
Status:
This rare fish is declining within its limited range where it occurs at low abundance and faces several
threats. It is critically imperiled in Virginia and imperiled in West Virginia (NatureServe 2008). It is a
Species of Concern federally and in both states. It is categorized as vulnerable by the American
Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008) due to habitat loss and narrow range. Jenkins and Burkhead (1994)
stated that they previously (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991) may have underrated the jeopardy of this
species in Virginia by recommending it for only special concern status; in 1994 they rated it as
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 440

 endangered or threatened in Virginia due to "localization or extirpation of most populations." At a
meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological Diversity, there was agreement
that the candy darter should be listed as theatened or potentially endangered (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss as a threat to this species. The candy darter is particularly
vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation because it is sensitive to changes in water quality and
temperature (West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) 2002). The primary threats
to the candy darter are siltation and turbidity from a variety of anthropogenic activities (Berkman
and Rabeni 1987, Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). Stream altering activities such as changes to the
stream channel or bank from adding boulders or removing canopy which provide shade and bank
stabilization severely negatively impact candy darters (WVDNR 2002). Chipps et al. (1993)
report that the darter is absent or much diminished in areas with excessive siltation. The Virginia
Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries (2006) identifies siltation, mine wastes, industrial and
municipal effluent pollution, and agricultural and urban runoff as threats to fish in Virginia's
northern ridge and valley province. Recreational fishing potentially threatens the candy darter.
Burkhead and Jenkins (1991) report that wading by anglers may negatively affect darter
populations. The candy darter is also threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005).
Mountaintop removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause significant downstream pollution.
Pollutants associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota (Palmer
et al. 2010). Elevated selenium concentrations downstream of mountaintop removal operations
can cause teratogenic deformities in larval fish (Palmer et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal
operations can extirpate entire orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates, eliminating food sources for
fish (Wood 2009).
Disease or predation:
The candy darter may be particularly vulnerable to predation due to its bright colors (Page and
Swofford 1984, Power 1987). Chipps et al. (1993) report that they did not detect the darter in
pools or areas inhabited by large, piscivorous fish and suggest that predation is a limiting factor for
this species. Trout stocking likely threatens the candy darter (Kuehne and Barbour 1983,
Burkhead and Jenkins 1991, NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this species. It is a Species of Concern
federally and in Virginia and West Virginia, but this designation does not confer any regulatory
protection.
Other factors:
Other factors which threaten the candy darter include water pollution (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991,
Chipps et al. 1993), introduction of predatory fishes (Kuehne and Barbour 1983), and
hybridization with E. variatum, which has been introduced into the New River above Kanawha Falls
(Switzer et al. 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 441

 References:
Berkman, H.E. and C.F. Rabeni. 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. Envrion.
Biol. Fishes 18:285-294.
Burkhead, N.M. and R.E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pp. 321-409 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.), Virginia’s
Endangered Species. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Co. Blacksburg, Virginia.
Chipps, S.R., W.B. Perry, and S.A. Perry. 1993. Status and distribution of Phenacobius teretulus,
Etheostoma osburni, and "Rhinichthys bowersi" in the Monongahela National Forest, West
Virginia. Va. J. Sci. 44(1):47-58.
Cincotta, D.A., T. Bassista, and T.E. Oldham. 2000. The Status of Etheostoma osburni (candy
darter) in West Virginia. Abstracts from the 2000 Southern Division of the American Fisheries
Society Midyear Meeting held in Savannah, Georgia. Accessed March 8, 2010 at:
http://www.sdafs.org/meetings/00sdafs/2000abs.pdf
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland. xxiii + 1079 pp.
Kuehne, R.A. and R.W. Barbour. 1983. The American darters: University of Kentucky Press,
Lexington, Kentucky. 189 pp.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Page, L.M. and D.L. Swofford. 1984. Morphological correlates of ecological specialization in
darters. Environ. Biol. Fishes 11:139-159.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Power, M.E. 1987. Predator avoidance by grazing fishes in temperate and tropical streams:
importance of stream depth and prey size. Pp. 333-351 in: W.C. Kerfoot and A. Sih (ed.),
Predation: Direct and indirect impacts on aquatic communities, University Press of New
England, Hanover.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 442

 Switzer, J.F., S.A. Welsh, T.L. King. 2008. A molecular genetic investigation of hybridization
between Etheostoma osburni and Etheostoma variatum in the New River drainage. Southeastern
Fishes Council Annual Meeting Abstracts, November 13 & 14, 2008, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Accessed March 8, 2010 at:
http://ichthyology.usm.edu/sfc/meetings/SFC2008abstracts.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2006. Virginia's Wildlife Action Plan,
Northern Ridge and Valley. Accessed Jan. 29, 2010 at: http://bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-actionplan/chapter-7.pdf
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 2002. West Virginia Nongame Wildlife and
Natural Heritage News, Rare Species at a Glance: Candy Darter. 18(4). Winter 2002.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 443

 Scientific Name:
Etheostoma pallididorsum
Common Name:
Paleback Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The paleback darter occurs in the Caddo River drainage in Arkansas. This fish is found upstream
from the confluence of the South Fork Caddo River in the main stem of the Caddo and several
tributaries including Five Mile Creek, though it has not been recently detected in Five Mile Creek
(NatureServe 2008). It is also known from Mayberry Creek, a secondary tributary of the Ouachita
River in west-central Arkansas (USFWS 1991).
Habitat:
The darter is associated with quiet shallow pools at the margins of gravel-bottomed, spring-fed
streams and rivulets, and generally avoids swift riffles (Lee et al. 1980). It often occurs near
vegetation over mud substrates (Robison and Allen 1995). Spawning occurs "in small seepage
water in open pastures or wooded areas" (Robison and Allen 1995), usually in temporary water
(USFWS 1991).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are fewer than five populations of this species.
Populations are not contiguous. There are seven sites where spawning has been confirmed, and it
is thought that there are additional sites (USFWS 1991).
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this species.
Status:
The paleback darter has a very restricted range where it is threatened by habitat destruction and
water pollution. It is ranked as imperiled by NatureServe (2008) and as threatened by the
American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008) due to habitat degradation and narrow range.
Habitat destruction:
Within its very limited range, the paleback darter is threatened by habitat loss and degradation
from several factors. The paleback darter is threatened by sand and gravel mining in the upper
Caddo River and tributaries (FWS 1991). It is threatened by loss of habitat through channelization,
which eliminates much of the shallow backwater areas which are preferred by the species
(Robison 2004). It is also threatened by habitat fragmentation caused by road crossings, and
destruction of spawning habitat as a result of municipal development (B. Crump, pers. comm.,
1995 cited in NatureServe 2008). The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (2005) lists threats
to this species as resource extraction, dams, channel alteration, forestry, and road construction.
Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss and degradation as a threat to this species.
Disease or predation:
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (2005) lists predation as a problem for this species, but
does not provide any details.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 444

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this species, and no occurrences are
appropriately protected and managed.
Other factors:
The paleback darter is threatened by sedimentation from sand and gravel mining, forestry, and
development, and by chemical pollution from resource extraction (Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission 2005). It is also threatened by nutrient inputs from chicken and hog farms (B. Crump,
pers. comm., 1995 cited in NatureServe 2008).
References:
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005. Species Account. Accessed March 17, 2010 at:
http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/09a%20fish.pdf
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Robison, H. W., and T. M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press,
Fayetteville, Arkansas. 536 pp.
Robison, H.W. and R.T. Allen. 1995. Only in Arkansas: A Study of the Endemic Plants and
Animals of the State. University of Arkansas Press: Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Robison, Henry W. 2004. A survey of the Paleback Darter, Etheostoma pallididorsum Distler
and Metcalf, an upper Ouachita River system endemic. Final report for USDA Forest Service,
Ouachita National Forest. Hot Springs, Arkansas. 37pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Status review of paleback darter, ETHEOSTOMA
PALLIDIDORSUM. Jackson Field Office, Jackson, Mississippi.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 445

 Scientific Name:
Etheostoma pseudovulatum
Common Name:
Egg-mimic Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Threatened
Range:
The egg-mimic darter is known from five tributaries systems of the Duck River, Tennessee,
including Piney River, Beaverdam Creek, Happy Hollow Creek, Only Creek, and Little Piney
Creek (Ceas and Page 1995, NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Like other members of the lollypop darter group, the egg-mimic darter occurs in cool, clear,
small to medium gravelly streams, typically beneath overhanging banks in low-gradient areas and
often in areas with dense mats of vegetation or tree roots (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Ceas and Page
1995).
Populations:
Ceas and Page (1995) surveyed 43 sites, finding the species in 10 historic and seven new sites.
Based on these surveys, they noted that populations in Only, Happy Hollow, and probably Little
Piney Creeks "continue to survive on a year-to-year basis but are highly susceptible to
extirpation," that the species was likely never abundant in Beaverdam Creek, and that the Piney
River populations are the most secure in the long term. NatureServe (2008) cites Peggy Shute
(pers. comm., 1998) as having recorded 18 occurrences with "an estimated condition of 20%
excellent, 20% good, 40% fair, and 20% poor." In high quality habitat, the species can be
common, but has a very restricted range and is found in low abundance in a several of the few
systems in which it occurs (Ceas and Page 1995, NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this species and there have not been rangewide status
surveys since 1995.
Status:
Ceas and Page (1995) note that "since the entire range of the egg-mimic darter encompasses an
extremely small area, continuing degradation of the headwater streams may eventually lead to the
extirpation of the egg-mimic darter." NatureServe (2008) lists the species as critically imperiled,
noting that "populations are highly vulnerable to extinction." AFS (Jelks et al. 2008) lists it as
threatened because of present or threatened destruction, modification or reducton of habitat or
range and because of a narrow restricted range.
Habitat destruction:
Speaking of the lollypop, crown and egg-mimic darters, Ceas and Page (1995) conclude that: "All have
extremely small total ranges, and all inhabit headwater streams. Localized extirpations of populations
from various streams may eventually lead to the widescale endangering of these species. Headwaters are
continuously being altered by human activities, and all forms of habitat degradation and pollution are
detrimental to the natural ecology of streams, especially to the benthic organisms such as darters." They
go on to note that diversions, channelization, bedload removal, dams, destruction of riparian vegetation,
point and non-point source pollution from domestic, municipal and industrial sources, agricultural
pollution from pesticides, herbicides and animal wastes, livestock grazing, logging and other factors

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 446

 threaten the habitat of the three darters and that specifically bedload removal for gravel is common in
the Beaverdam Creek system, which is one of the five tributaries occupied by the egg-mimic darter.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) notes that none of the populations of egg-mimic darter are appropriately
protected. It is listed in Tennessee, but this affords no protection to the species' habitat. Ceas and
Page (1995) conclude that: "Additional protection could be gained by requiring federal, state, and
local agencies to consult with the USFWS when projects they possess knowledge of, fund, carry
out, or authorize may negatively affect these species," or in other words listing of the species
under the Endangered Species Act.
Other factors:
Jelks et al. (2008) list this species as threatened in part because of a narrow restricted range. The
egg-mimic darter is threatened by water pollution from a variety of sources (Ceas and Page 1995).
References:
Ceas, P. A., and L. M. Page. 1995. Status surveys of the crown darter (ETHEOSTOMA
CORONA) and the lollypop darter (ETHEOSTOMA NEOPTERUM) in the Cypress Creek and
Shoal Creek systems of Tennessee and Alabama, and the egg-mimic darter (ETHEOSTOMA
PSEUDOVULATUM) in the Duck River system of Tennessee. Tennessee Wildlife Resource
Agency, Nashville, Tennessee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina.
Technical Report No. 14.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Page, L. M., P. A. Ceas, D. L. Swofford, and D. G. Buth. 1992. Evolutionary relationships within
the Etheostoma squamiceps complex (Percidae; subgenus Catonotus) with descriptions of five
new species. Copeia 1992:615-46.
Shute, P. W., D. A. Etnier, C. F. Saylor, and R. D. Bivens. [In press]. Fishes. In Hatcher, et al.
(editors). Tennessee's Rare Vertebrate Wildlife. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency,
Nashville, Tennessee.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 447

 Scientific Name:
Etheostoma striatulum
Common Name:
Striated Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The striated darter is confined to tributaries of the Duck River in Bedford, Lewis, Marshall, and
Maury counties, Tennessee (Burr et al. 1993, Etnier and Starnes 1993). A survey of 30 sites in
2006 failed to find the striated darter in four historic reaches, including the type locality
(Abernathy and Mattingly 2007).
Habitat:
The striated darter occurs in slabrock pools in small to medium, low gradient creeks and shelters
under rocks, undercut banks or tree roots (Page 1980, Etnier and Starnes 1993, NatureServe
2008). Males guard eggs, which are deposited on the underside of slabrocks (Page 1980).
Populations:
In total, the striated darter has been collected at 28 locations, but in the most recent surveys has
only been found in a slightly more than a third as many sites (Burr et al. 1993, Abernathy and
Mattingly 2007). Burr et al. (1993) only found the species at 10 sites. Abernathy and Mattingly
(2007) found the species at six of these same sites, could not find the species at four sites,
including the type locality, and identified five new reaches where the species was found.
Populations of the striated darter are very rare. Based on their 1996 survey, Abernathy and
Mattingly concluded:
"This study reaffirmed that Etheostoma striatum is a rare species with a relatively small
geographic range. Only 24 adults and 78 juveniles were seen in 11 sites in 2006 and only 26
individuals were seen in 10 sites in the previous (1992) survey."
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) concluded that short term trend is unknown, but that "habitat extent and
quality probably are still declining," and that the species has experienced a substantial long term
decline. In surveys in 1992, this species was detected at only one-third of historical locations
(Burr et al. 1993) and in surveys in 2006, the species was not found at four of ten sites where it
was previously found (Abernathy and Mattingly 2007).
Status:
Etnier and Starnes (1993) conclude that "although not currently protected by state or federal
endangered species legislation, its occurrence in fewer than a dozen creeks in a four-county area
makes it extremely vulnerable to significant depletion," further noting that "recent attempts to
collect E. striatulum from four of these localities have met with no success, making its status very
questionable." NatureServe (2008) lists the striated darter as critically imperiled, noting that it is
"threatened by habitat degradation resulting from agricultural practices." Jelks et al. (2008) list it
as threatened and declining. Abernathy and Mattingly (2007) concluded:
"The combination of low abundance, small geographic range, declining abundance at selected

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 448

 sites, and anecdotal evidence of degraded stream conditions warrants the attention of biologists
and policymakers charged with resource conservation duties in the Tennessee Region. The
striated darter should be considered for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act and its
state status should be elevated if possible. Periodic monitoring of population trends and interim
efforts to restore and protect stream habitat quality would be prudent conservation measures to
encourage the persistence of this unique Duck River species."
At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological Diversity, there was
agreement that the striated darter should be listed as endangered (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) concludes that "habitat degradation resulting from agricultural practices pose
the greatest threat to this species," and more specifically that "cattle manure being dropped
directly into streams is causing severe oxygen depletion," and that "siltation from nonpoint
agricultural sources also is a problem." Jelks et al. (2008) list this species as threatened because
of the present or threatened destruction, modification or reduction of habitat or range. Abernathy
and Mattingly (2007) concluded: that "habitat degradation is occurring in striated darter streams
and the species may be suffering as a result," noting that the "darter was not observed at four sites
where it was seen in 1992, including the type locality which is in a degraded condition."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) concludes that it is unknown whether any occurrences of the striated darter
are appropriately protected. It is listed as threatened by the state of Tennessee, but this
designation does not provide any protection for the species' habitat.
Other factors:
Jelks et al. (2008) list the striated darter as threatened because of a narrow, restricted range. Water
pollution from agricultural sources also threatens this species. Finally, because the striated darter
is an annual species, it is vulnerable to population extirpation caused by lapses in reproduction due
to environmental or anthropogenic stochasticity, such as stream dewatering due to drought or
withdrawal (Abernathy and Mattingly 2007).
References:
Abernathy, A.C., and H.T. Mattingly. 2007. Population status and environmental associations of
the rare striated darter, Etheostoma striatulum. Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Columbia, TN.
Burr, B. M., C. A. Taylor, and K.M. Cook. 1993. Status survey of the coppercheek darter
(Etheostoma aquali), striated darter (Etheostoma striatulum), and saddled madtom (Noturus sp.
cf. elegans) in the Duck River drainage, Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of
Science 71(55). 76 pp.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 449

 North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Page, L. M. 1980. The life histories of Etheostoma olivaceum and Etheostoma striatulum, two
species of darters in central Tennessee. Biological Notes of the Illinois Natural History Survey
113: 3-14.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 450

 Scientific Name:
Etheostoma tecumsehi
Common Name:
Shawnee Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Threatened
Range:
This fish has one of the smallest known ranges for any darter and occurs only in upland tributaries
of the upper Pond River in the Green River system in Christian, Todd, and extreme southeastern
Hopkins counties in Kentucky. These headwaters originate on the Dripping Springs Escarpment of
the Mammoth Cave Plateau and drain a small part of the Shawnee Hills section of the Interior
Low Plateaus Province (Ceas and Page 1997).
Habitat:
The shawnee darter occurs in upland headwater creeks with sand-gravel or pebble-cobble
substrates. It is found in riffles, glides, and pools (Burr et al. 2004).
Populations:
There are less than five populations of this fish. Within its single river basin, it is widely
distributed and common. This species was detected at 24 of 30 sites sampled in 2002, but these
represent a very small number of distinct occurrences (Cicerello and Butler 2007, NatureServe
2008).
Population Trends:
This fish has declined by 10-30 percent (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This endemic fish is restricted to upland tributaries of a single river system. It is ranked as
imperiled (G1S2) by NatureServe (2008) and as threatened by the American Fisheries Society
(Jelks et al. 2008) due to habitat loss and narrow range.
Habitat destruction:
The Shawnee darter is highly vulnerable to habitat degradation because the flow and water quality
of headwater streams is tied more closely to local land use than in larger streams (Cicerello and
Butler 2007). Within its extremely limited range, the darter faces threats from multiple land-uses.
Agriculture is the primary land-use in the Pond River system, and extensive row crops and pasture
fragment upland forests (Cicerello and Butler 2007). Clearing of upland and riparian forests
negatively influences water quality and threatens this darter, particularly during drought years, by
reducing ground water inflow and raising stream temperature (Ibid.). Cicerello and Butler (2007)
state, “We observed several upper Pond River system streams that were reduced to isolated pools
during the relatively dry summer of 2002. Some headwater streams normally cease flowing in
summer, but conversion of forests to other uses could have increased the duration and extent of
zero flow periods.” Agricultural run-off, including sedimentation and pesticides, are known
threats to sensitive fish. Ceas and Pages (1997) reported declines of this darter related to a
tractor fuel spill and the construction of small impoundments. Many streams in the area are
impounded for flood control, and others, such as Buck Fork Pond River and Jarrels Creek are
channelized (Cicerello and Butler 2007). Impoundments cause increased siltation and population
isolation and fragmentation. Numerous populations of this species have been isolated by flood
control reservoirs, and movement and gene flow in many streams is precluded, which could

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 451

 negatively influence the long-term viability of the species (Ibid.). Coal mining also threatens this
fish. Broad areas in the region have been surface-mined for coal, leaving abandoned mine lands
and highly degraded aquatic habitats. Many streams, including the entire mainstem Pond River, do
not support or only partially support their designated uses because of contaminants and other
factors such as low pH, PCBs, pathogens, chlorides, and silt (Ibid.). Coal mining occurs in the
northern portion of the southern half of the system, and mining has occurred adjacent to lower
McFarland and Jarrels creeks and near the confluence of the West and East Forks Pond rivers
(Ibid.). Although this species is common within its lone river system, its habitat has been and
continues to be degraded and this endemic fish could easily be extirpated by the cumulative
impacts of agriculture, logging, coal mining, and impoundment. Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss
and degradation as a threat to this species.
Disease or predation:
Cicerello and Butler (2007) report that migrating E. tecumsehi are threatened by stocked
predatory game fishes (e.g.,Lepomis spp., Micropterus spp.).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no regulatory mechanisms which protect this fish or its habitat.
Other factors:
The Shawnee darter is threatened by pollution from agriculture and coal mining (Cicerello and
Butler 2007).
References:
Burr, B.M., J.T. Sipiorski, M.R. Thomas, K.S. Cummings, and C.A. Taylor. 2004. Fishes,
Mussels, Crayfishes, and Aquatic Habitats of the Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment Area.
Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-244. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North
Central Research Station. 267 p. Accessed March 12, 2010 at:
http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc244/gtr_nc244_ch6.pdf
Ceas, P. A., and L. M. Page. 1997. Systematic studies of the Etheostoma spectabile complex
(Percidae; subgenus Oligocephalus), with descriptions of four species. Copeia 1997:496-522.
Cicerello, R.R. and R.S. Butler. 2007. Distribution and status of Etheostoma tecumsehi, the
Shawnee darter, a species endemic to the Pond River, Green River drainage, Kentucky. SFC
Proceedings No. 49.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 452

 Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 453

Scientific Name:
Etheostoma tippecanoe
Common Name:
Tippecanoe Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Vulnerable
Range:
The Tippecanoe darter has a wide but sporadic distribution in the Ohio River basin, from the
Allegheny River and French Creek drainages in western Pennsylvania, Muskingum and Scioto
river drainages in Ohio, Tippecanoe River and East Fork White River drainages in Indiana, and the
Little Kanawha and Elk rivers in West Virginia south to the Cumberland River drainage in
Tennessee and Kentucky (Lee et al. 1980, Cooper 1983, Burr and Warren 1986, Etnier and
Starnes 1993, Felbaum 1995, Stauffer et al. 1995, Skelton and Etnier 2000). In Tennessee, this
darter occurs in short reaches of the Big South Fork Cumberland, Red, and Harpeth rivers
(Skelton and Etnier 2000). Populations which have been reported from the upper Tennessee River
drainage, Tennessee and Virginia, and the Duck and Buffalo rivers in the lower Tennessee River
drainage, are now known to represent another species, E. denoncourti (Stauffer and van Snik 1997,
Skelton and Etnier 2000, Kinziger et al. 2001).
Habitat:
This darter uses medium-sized upland rivers and large creeks with moderate gradient and warm
water which is usually clear. Adults are found in both shallow and deep, moderate and swift runs
and long shallow gravel/sand riffles (Trautman 1981, Burr and Warren 1986, Burkhead and
Jenkins 1991). Spawning occurs in areas with gentle current at the heads or tails of clean-swept
gravel and pebble riffles in water 8-46 centimeters deep (Lee et al. 1980, Page 1983, Burr and
Warren 1986).
Ecology:
Population size of this species exhibits major annual fluctuations (see Burkhead and Jenkins
1991).
Populations:
Skelton and Etnier (2000) coarse-scale mapped approximately 40 collection sites for this
species, which may represent more than 20 distinct occurrences. The number of locations (as
defined by IUCN) exceeds 10. Total adult population size is unknown. In Kentucky, where most of
the best remaining populations are known, Burr and Warren (1986) reported the darter as
sporadic and generally uncommon in the Green river, the South and Middle Forks Kentucky river,
and the Big South Fork Cumberland River, and as occasional and seasonally common in the
middle to lower Licking River. NatureServe (2008) reports that subsequent surveys have found
this species to be more common than previously known, though it has been extirpated from many areas.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Tippecanoe darter has experienced long-term decline of up to
50 percent, and that it is probably relatively stable to slowly declining in the short-term. It has
been eliminated from many areas (Etnier and Starnes 1993).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 454

 Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Tippecanoe darter as critically imperiled in Tennessee, imperiled in Ohio,
West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, vulnerable in Indiana, and secure in Kentucky. The vulnerable ranking
in Indiana may not accurately reflect its status in the state, where it is listed as threatened. This species is
discontinuously distributed from the Ohio River basin to the Cumberland River drainage, and is
regarded as endangered, threatened, or special concern in all states except Kentucky. Its habitat has
declined due to impoundments, siltation, coal mining, and possibly agricultural contaminants. It is statelisted as threatened in Indiana, and Ohio, endangered in Pennsylvania, is a Virginia Species of Greatest
Conservation Need, and a Tennessee species in need of management. It is ranked as vulnerable by the
American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008).
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss and degradation is the primary threat to this species (Jelks et al. 2008). Some
populations have been extirpated by impoundments and siltation (Etnier and Starnes 1993).
Agricultural runoff, including siltation and possibly contamination, is a chronic limiting factor in
some areas (NatureServe 2008). The Tippecanoe darter is also threatened by mountaintop removal
coal mining (EPA 2005). Mountaintop removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause
significant downstream pollution. Pollutants associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion
balance in aquatic biota (Palmer et al. 2010). Elevated selenium concentrations downstream of
mountaintop removal operations can cause teratogenic deformities in larval fish (Palmer et al.
2010). Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates,
eliminating food sources for fish (Wood 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which adequately protect this species. It is statelisted in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, but these designations provide no regulatory protection
for the species' habitat. It lacks protective status in Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky where it
is threatened by pollution from mining and agriculture. NatureServe (2008) reports that at least a
few occurrences appear to be adequately protected.
Other factors:
Water pollution is a dire threat to this species.
References:
Burkhead, N. M., and R. E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pages 321-409 in K. Terwilliger
(coordinator). Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. McDonald and
Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Burr, B. M., and M. L. Warren, Jr. 1986. A distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Kentucky
Nature Preserves Commission, Scientific and Technical Series 4. 398 pp.
Cooper, E. L. 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania and the northeastern United States. Pennsylvania
State Univ. Press, University Park. 243 pp.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 455

 Felbaum, M., et al. 1995. Endangered and threatened species of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA:
Wildlife Conservation Resource Fund.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky. 177 pp.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Stauffer, J. R., Jr., J. M. Boltz, and L. R. White. 1995. The fishes of West Virginia. Proceedings
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 146:1-389.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in
Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed
Threatened and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R05002.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 456

 Scientific Name:
Etheostoma trisella
Common Name:
Trispot Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The trispot darter is found in portions of the upper Coosa River system in Alabama, Tennessee and
Georgia, including the Conasauga River system above the Coosawatee River and eight of its
tributaries, the Coosawatee River and three tributaries below Carters Reservoir, and in at least one
tributary to the Oostanaula River system (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Boschung and Mayden 2004,
Georgia DNR 2008). It was long believed extinct in Alabama, but was recently found on
"protected forest land east of Gadsden, Alabama" (Freeman 2009).
Habitat:
The trispot darter utilizes two distinct habitats (Boschung and Mayden 2004). When not breeding,
the darter occupies slack water in the Conasauga and its tributaries, Coahulla and Mill Creeks in
association with detritus, logs, sticks and beds of water willow (Ibid.) For spawning, the darter
migrates during flooding to seepage waters and small ditches in pastures adjacent to Mill Creek
and floodplain forests adjacent to the Conasauga River (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Boschung and
Mayden 2004). This requirement for two distinct, but interconnected habitats makes the species
highly sensitive to habitat modification.
Populations:
Although populations of the trispot darter may have occurred throughout the Ridge and Valley
corridor portion of the Conasauga River, populations are currently restricted to limited areas of a
few mainstem rivers and a small number of tributaries (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Freeman 2009).
Population Trends:
The trispot darter is extirpated from portions of its historic range from impoundment and other
factors, indicating long-term decline (Boschung and Mayden 2004, Freeman 2009).
Status:
The tripost darter was reclassified from threatened to endangered by Jelks et al. (2008) due to
increasing threats to its survival. Boschung and Mayden (2004) conclude, "[b]ecause the trispot
darter is so restricted in range, so few in numbers, and needs two distinctly different and
interconnecting habitats, it is very vulnerable to any environmental insults that would disrupt its
normal life cycle," adding that they "concur with Warren et al. (2000) in recommending
endangered status for the trispot darter." NatureServe (2008) lists the species as extirpated in
Alabama and critically imperiled in Georgia and Tennessee. At a meeting of the Southeastern
Fishes Council and the Center for Biological Diversity, there was consensus that this species
should be listed (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
Jelks et al. (2008) cite the present or threatened destruction, modification, or reduction in habitat or
range as a threat to the survival of this species. This fish is known to have been lost from portions of the
mainstem Coosa River following impoundment (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Boschung and Mayden 2004,
Georgia DNR 2008). Freeman (2009) concluded:

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 457

 "The greatest threat to the trispot darter is habitat loss and degradation, including loss of access to
spawning areas in seepage streams. Dams built on tributary streams and springs and dredging or filling
in small seepage streams could eliminate spawning habitat for the trispot darter. Droughts or excessive
water withdrawal which de-water spring runs could also lead to reproductive failure."
Although trispot darter have to date remained stable, conditions in the Conasauga River, where the
largest population occurs, have declined with Freeman (2009) noting: "declines or apparent loss of
some fish species (e.g., the Coosa chub (Macrhybopsis sp. cf. M. aestivalis and Coosa madtom (Noturus
sp. cf. N. munitus)), decline in the aquatic macrophyte, riverweed, and an apparent increase in algal
production."
Freeman (2009) states that this species' habitat needs to be protected from runoff from agriculture and
development.
This species is also threatened by urban sprawl from Birmingham in the Little Canoe River area (SFC
and CBD 2010).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that it is unknown whether any occurrences are appropriately
protected. Freeman (2009) highlights the need to "protect habitat quality in main channel and
small tributary streams by eliminating sediment runoff from upland construction, maintaining or
enhancing forested buffers along stream banks, eliminating inputs of contaminants, such as
fertilizers or other nutrients and pesticides, and maintaining natural patterns of stream flow," but
did not suggest any mechanisms for accomplishing these goals. Georgia lists the species as
endangered and Tennessee as threatened. Alabama included the darter on its list of species of
greatest conservation need, but as extinct. None of these designations provide substantial
regulatory protections for the species.
Other factors:
Jelks et al. (2008) list the species as endangered because of a narrow, restricted range. This fish is
also threatened by water pollution from agriculture and development (Freeman 2009).
References:
Bailey, R. M., and W. Richards. 1963. Status of POECILICHTHYS HOPKINSI Fowler and
ETHEOSTOMA TRISELLA, new species, percid fishes from Alabama, Georgia and South
Carolina. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 630:1-21.
Bart, H. L., Jr., and L. M. Page. 1992. The influence of size and phylogeny on life history
variation in North American percids. Pages 553-572 in R. L. Mayden, editor. Systematics,
historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford,
Calfiornia. xxvi + 969 pp.
Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.
Freeman, B.J. 2009. Species account for Trispot Darter Etheostoma trisella. Georgia
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 458

 Freeman (2009) noting: "declines or apparent loss Department of Natural Resources. Accessed 12 April
2010. Available online at
of some fish species (e.g., the Coosa chub (Macrhybopsis sp. cf. M. aestivalis and Coosa madtom
www.georgiawildlife.com
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky. 177 pp.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.
Page, L. M. 1983. Handbook of Darters. T. F. H. Pub., Inc., Neptune City, New Jersey. 271 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott.
1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American
Fisheries Society, Special Publishing 20. 183 pp.
Ryon, M. G. 1986. The life history and ecology of ETHEOSTOMA TRISELLA (Pisces:
Percidae). American Midland Naturalist 115:73-86.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 459

 Scientific Name:
Etheostoma tuscumbia
Common Name:
Tuscumbia Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Tuscumbia darter occurs in springs and spring runs of the southern bend of the Tennessee
River in northern Alabama and formerly Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Boschung and
Mayden 2004).
Habitat:
The Tuscumbia darter occurs in well vegetated springs with substrates of fine gravel, sand and silt
with Boschung and Mayden (2004) concluding, "In degraded habitats, the substrate is silted, much
of the vegetation has been lost and replaced with filamentous algae; and the water is often turbid.
In healthy habitats, the darter usually occurs in large numbers amid thick mats of native vegetation."
Populations:
Of 26 known populations of the Tuscumbia darter, at least twelve have been lost to impoundments and
other causes of habitat destruction and degradation (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Boschung and Mayden
2004, NatureServe 2008). In Tennesse, two known Tuscumbia darter sites were inundated by Pickwick
Pool (Boshcung and Mayden 2004). In Alabama, 10 of 12 historic sites "are inundated by
impoundments or otherwise detroyed or degraded to the point that they not longer support the darter"
(Ibid.) Discovery of new sites has led to documentation of a total of 14 populations with Boschung and
Mayden (2004) noting that "some springs appear to be in good and stable condition, but others
(Tuscumbia and Bradham springs) are in poor condition and support only small populations." This
species can be abundant in individual springs (SFC and CBD 2010).
Population Trends:
Many sites of this species have been lost or degraded to impoundment and other factors,
indicaitng long-term decline (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Boschung and Mayden 2004, NatureServe
2008).
Status:
Jelks et al. (2008) list the Tuscumbia darter as threatened. NatureServe (2008) lists the darter as
imperiled in Alabama and extirpated in Tennessee, noting that it is "extirpated from roughly half of
known sites in Alabama," and that "populations are vulnerable to alteration of spring heads."
Kuhajda (2004) concluded:
"Restricted to 14 springs and spring runs in five counties in Alabama, but most springs have some
degradation, including removal of aquatic vegetation and water, excessive sedimentation, livestock
entering spring, and small impoundments. Have dissapeared from almost half of historic springs;
seven sites have been inundated by impoundment of Tennessee River, and have dissapeared from
an additional five springs due to extensive habitat modification."
Habitat destruction:
At least 12 populations of the Tuscumbia darter have been lost to destruction of habitat from
impoundments and other factors (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Boschung and Mayden 2004, Kuhajda

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 460

 2004, NatureServe 2008). Boschung and Mayden (2004) conclude:
"Where spring habitsts persist and vegetation is maintained in the spring head area, the darter is
able to maintain adequate population numbers. However, the species is extirpated in some springs
because of gross habitat modification. Some springs have been converted into fishing ponds, and
others have been completely denuded of vegetation by wholesale use of herbicides to 'clear out'
the spring."
Jelks et al. (2008) identify the present or threatened destruction, modification or reduction of
habitat or range as a reason for classifying the species as threatened.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) concludes that no occurrences of the Tuscumbia darter are appropriately
protected or managed. Alabama considers the species a priority 2 species of greatest conservation
need, but this designation does not provide any regulatory protection.
Other factors:
Jelks et al. (2008) identify a narrow, restricted range as a factor in this species being considered
threatened.
References:
Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Jones, E. B. III, B. R. Kuhajda, and R. L. Mayden. 1993. Monitoring of Tuscumbia darter,
ETHEOSTOMA TUSCUMBIA, populations in the southern bend of the Tennessee River,
Alabama, May-November 1993. Final report to Alabama Dept. of Conservation and Natural
Resources and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Montgomery, Alabama.
Kuhajda, B. 2004. Tuscumbia Darter. In Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee and P.E.
O'Neil (eds.). Alabama Wildlife Volume Two: Imperiled Aquatic Mussels and Fihses. Unversity
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Mayden, R. L. 1994. Tuscumbia darter population status. Annual report to Alabama Department
of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, Alabama.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 461

 Scientific Name:
Eumeces egregius egregius
Common Name:
Florida Keys Mole Skink
G Rank:
T2
Range:
The Florida Keys Mole Skink has a restricted range in southern Florida. It is the southernmost of
the mole skink subspecies. It occurs in Dry Tortugas and Lower Keys in Monroe County. It might
occur in Upper and Middle Keys, and in Key West, Middle Torch Key, Key Vaca, Stock Island,
Big Pine Key, Grassy Key, Upper Matecumbe, and Saddlebunch. Intergrade forms occur on Key
Largo. It may no longer be extant on Indian Key (Lazell 1989, Christman 1992, NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
The Florida Keys Mole Skink usually occurs near the shoreline in sandy areas where it burrows
into soil. It likely requires fairly loose soil. It uses stones, debris, driftwood, and tidal wrack for
cover (Christman 1992, Conant and Collins 1991).
Ecology:
Mole Skinks reach sexual maturity after one year. They mate in winter; after which the female lays
three to seven eggs in spring in a shallow nest cavity less than 30 cm below the surface. The eggs
incubate for 31 to 51 days, during which time the female tends the nest
(http://www.redorbit.com/education/reference_library/reptiles/mole_skink/760/index.html).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are from 6-20 populations of Florida Keys Mole Skink
distributed on at least seven islands in the Florida Keys. Total population size is unknown. It was
once thought to be locally common, but Lazell (1989) regarded this lizard as genuinely rare and
probably endangered.
Population Trends:
The Florida Keys Mole Skink has experience a decline of 10-30 percent and elemental
occurrences are probably decreasing (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Florida Keys Mole Skink is imperiled (T2S2) in Florida (NatureServe 2008). It is considered
to be a Species of Special Concern by the State of Florida.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that habitat loss and degradation due to development is a major threat
for the Florida Keys Mole Skink, and that it is "highly threatened by increasing development." The
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection reports that the Florida Keys has been a fast-growing
area since the middle of the 20th Century and remains very vulnerable to habitat conversion for
development (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/programs/files/final_proj_flkeys_08.pdf). The
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission reports that the transitional/disturbed habitat with
which the species is associated is threatened by degradation, altered fire and hydrologic regime,
pollution, fragmentation, development, conversion to agriculture, logging, mining, and recreation
(myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Disturbed.pdf). The pine rockland habitat with which
this species is associated are highly threatened by habitat conversion, landscape alteration, altered

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 462

 fire regime, roads, and development
(http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Pine_Rockland.pdf). This species' beach
habitats are very highly threatened by disturbance, degradation, and recreation, and are highly
threatened by erosion, altered soil structure, and sea level rise
(http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Beach.pdf).
Overutilization:
Overcollection by herpetological enthusiasts is a major threat to the Florida Keys Mole Skink
(NatureServe 2008). Christman (1992) noted that amateur collecting on the National Key Deer
Wildlife Refuge should be controlled. NatureServe (2008) notes that the state ban on collection
except by scientific permit needs to be enforced.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect this subspecies. The skink is a
Species of Special Concern in Florida, but this designation does not convey regulatory protection.
This lizard occurs at Fort Jefferson National Monument, at Bahia Honda SRA, and it might occur
on Key Deer and Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuges.
Other factors:
The Florida Center for Environmental Studies reports that the Florida Keys Mole Skink is in
danger of extinction from sea level rise due to global climate change
(http://www.ces.fau.edu/floc/presentations/presentations.php?id=14).
References:
Christman, S. P. 1992. Florida Keys mole skink EUMECES EGREGIUS EGREGIUS (Baird).
Pages 178-180 in P. E. Moler, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. III. Amphibians
and reptiles. Univ. Press of Florida.
Conant, R. and J. T. Collins. 1991. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central
North America. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 450 pp.
Florida Center for Environmental Studies. 2008. Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea:
Characteristics of Terrestrial Climate Sensitive Species. Harris, L., R. Noss, T. Hoctor, M. Volk,
S. Beyeler, J. Oetting, J. Weiss, and J. Overpeck.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/floc/presentations/presentations.php?id=14
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection. 2008. Florida Keys.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/programs/files/final_proj_flkeys_08.pdf
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Beach.
http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Beach.pdf
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Disturbed.
myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Disturbed.pdf
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Pine Rockland.
http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Pine_Rockland.pdf
Lazell, J. D., Jr. 1989. Wildlife of the Florida Keys: a Natural History. Island Press, Washington,
D.C.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 463

 Scientific Name:
Eupatorium paludicola
Common Name:
No common name
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Recently described (2007), this species is found along the Atlantic Coastal Plain of North and
South Carolina. Natural heritage records exist for Onslow and Scotland Counties, North Carolina,
and Marlboro County, South Carolina (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This species occurs in isolated wet Coastal Plain depressions, including clay-based Carolina bays.
Its habitat is typically inundated in the winter and spring, and drier in summer and fall, though
sites may remain flooded throughout the growing season. This plant prefers habitat that is
generally open, with no shrub layer and few trees, though it sometimes occurs with pond cypress,
Taxodium ascendens (LeBlond et al. 2007).
Populations:
Eight occurrences of this plant are currently known: five in North Carolina, two in South Carolina,
and one on the border between the states. Population sizes are not reported, and researchers do
not anticipate that many new populations will be discovered since surveys throughout potential
habitat have been extensive (LeBlond et al. 2007).
Population Trends:
Population trend has not been reported for this recently described species.
Status:
This recently described plant is known only from eight locations, has high habitat specificity, and
is dependent on consistent hydroperiods. It is possibly threatened by hybridization with E. mohrii.
NatureServe (2008) has not yet ranked this species.
Habitat destruction:
This plant is very sensitive to changes in hydrology (LeBlond et al. 2007).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
Other factors:
Hybridization with the widespread species Eupatorium mohrii has been observed at some
locations, and may outnumber pure E. paludicola; such assimilation represents a major threat to
this species' genetic integrity (LeBlond et al. 2007).
References:
LeBlond, R. J., E. E. Schilling, R. D. Porcher, B. A. Sorrie, J. F. Townsend, P. D. McMillan, and
A. S. Weakley. 2007. Eupatorium paludicola (Asteraceae): A new species from the coastal plain
of North and South Carolina. Rhodora 109(938): 137-144.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 464

 NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 11, 2009)

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 465

 Scientific Name:
Euphyes dukesi calhouni
Common Name:
Dukes' Skipper
G Rank:
T2
Range:
E. d. calhouni is known from at least seven counties in the northern Florida peninsula.
NatureServe (2008) reports that this subspecies may become elevated to a full species. Should
that occur, the Center hereby petitions for either the subspecies or the species.
Habitat:
The calhouni subspecies of E. dukesi inhabits sedge patches within swamps, which may be
cypress, gum, red maple or mixed canopy (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are seventeen known occurrences of this butterfly.
Population Trends:
According to Natureserve (2008), this species is declining by 10-30 percent in the short-term due
to loss of habitat to urbanization and other uses.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks Duke's skipper as an imperiled subspecies (T2).
Habitat destruction:
Duke's skipper is threatened by conversion of its wetland habitat to development and other uses
(NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this species. NatureServe (2008)
reports that it is unknown if any occurrences are protected. Minno (1994 in Deyrup and Franz)
specifically points out the inadequacy of wetland regulations for protecting specialized species
such as this one.
Other factors:
This butterfly is threatened by chemicals sprayed in mosquito control efforts.
References:
Deyrup, Mark and Richard Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. IV:
Invertebrates. R. E. Ashton Jr. (series ed.). University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL. 798 pp.
Shuey, John A., 1996. Another new EUPHYES from the southern United States Coastal Plain
(Hesperiidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 50(1): 46-53.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 466

 Scientific Name:
Euphyes pilatka klotsi
Common Name:
Palatka Skipper
G Rank:
T1
Range:
This butterfly is known from the following Florida Keys: Big Pine, Big Torch, Cudjoe, No Name,
Sugarloaf, Stock Island (NatureServe 2008). Its total range is less than 100-250 square km (less
than about 40 to 100 square miles).
Habitat:
This species is found in tropical pinelands and sawgrass marshes at the edges of mangroves with
substantial sawgrass (Minno, in Deyrup and Franz, 1994).
Populations:
Population information has not been quantified for this rare species. Marc Minno (pers. co, to D.
Schweitzer, cited in NatureServe 2008) searched for it in the lower Keys nearly every month
from August 2006 to January 2008 and only found nine adults and a few larvae.
Population Trends:
Less than 10 adults of this species have been recently detected.
Status:
In 1994 the Palatka skipper was already considered to be Threatened (Minno in Deyrup and Franz
1994) and it is much rarer now. Fewer than 10 adults of this species were detected from 20062008 (NatureServe 2008). It is critically imperiled, and is a Species of Greatest Conservation
Need.
Habitat destruction:
This butterfly is threatened by habitat loss from development and succession (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This butterfly is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Florida, but this confers no habitat
protection. NatureServe (2008) reports that it is unknown if any occurrences are protected and
states that any protection would have to include restrictions on biocide use as well as land
preservation.
Other factors:
This butterfly is threatened by the spraying of biocides for mosquito control (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Deyrup, Mark and Richard Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. IV:
Invertebrates. R. E. Ashton Jr. (series ed.). University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL. 798 pp.
Minno, Marc C., and Thomas C. Emmel. 1993. Butterflies of the Florida Keys. Scientific
Publishers, Gainsville, FL. 168 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 467

 Opler, P. A., and A. D. Warren. 2002. Butterflies of North America. 2. Scientific Names List for
Butterfly Species of North America, north of Mexico. C.P Gillette Museum of Arthropod
Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 79 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 468

 Scientific Name:
Eurybia saxicastellii
Common Name:
Rockcastle Wood-Aster
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This wood-aster is known from reaches of the Rockcastle River in Laurel, McCreary, and Pulaski
Counties, Kentucky, and along the Big South Fork River in Scott County, Tennessee (NatureServe
2008, Bailey et al. 2000, USDA Plant Database 2009).
Habitat:
This plant occurs on sandstone boulder or cobble river bars that are flooded in spring, dry in
summer, and exhibit a range of successional stages (FNA 2006, Bailey 2000). E. saxicastellii is
found within the transitional zone between open grassy vegetation on river bars and upslope
forests, and may be associated with hazel alder (Alnus serrulata), groundnut (Apios americana),
blue wood aster (Aster cordifolius), black birch (Betula nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), swamp tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica) and various ferns (Campbell and Medley 1989, Shea
1994).
Ecology:
The wood-aster is perennial and flowers August-October (Campbell and Medley 1989).
Populations:
This flower is known from approximately 16 occurrences each in Tennessee and Kentucky, all
along the Rockcastle or Big South Fork Rivers. Population sizes are not reported (NatureServe
2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) determined that this species is stable in the short term but threats to its
habitat are widespread.
Status:
Known from an extremely restricted range, the long-term viability of this plant is threatened by
various anthropogenic factors. NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in
both Tennessee and Kentucky. It is state-listed as threatened in Kentucky and endangered in
Tennessee.
Habitat destruction:
The rockcastle wood-aster is threatened widely by anthropogenic alterations to regional or local
hydrology, timber harvesting, agriculture, and other sediment-generating activities, and locally by
road and trail construction and ATV use (KSNPC 2006, Southern Appalachian Species Viability
Project 2002, Shea 1994). Habitat protections are vital to this species' conservation because its
distribution is so limited.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Tennessee occurrences are found within the Big South Fork National River Recreation Area, which
may provide minor protection from some threats but not all. Several Kentucky populations occur
within the Big South Fork National River Recreation Area or Daniel Boone National Forest, but specific
management for this species is likely limited. No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect
this species or its habitat. This flower is state-listed in both Kentucky and Tennessee, but this
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 469

 designation does not confer habitat protection.
Other factors:
Invasive exotic plants may threaten E. saxicastellii at some sites (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Bailey, C. 2000. Field survey for Aster saxicastellii (Rockcastle aster) and Calamovilfa arcuata
(Cumberland sandgrass). Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage.
Campbell, J.J.N., and M.E. Medley. 1989. Aster saxicastellii (Asteraceae), a new species from
the Rockcastle River bars in southeastern Kentucky. Sida 13(3): 277-284.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2006b. Flora of North America North of Mexico.
Vol. 20. Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, part 7: Asteraceae, part 2. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
xxii + 666 pp.
Jones, R. L. 2005. Plant Life of Kentucky. The University Press of Kentucky. 834 pp.
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC). 2006. Kentucky Rare Plant Database.
Available online:<< http://eppcapps.ky.gov/nprareplants/>> (accessed February 1 2010).
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 19, 2010).
Shea, M.M. 1994. Status survey for Aster saxicastellii. Cooperative Agreement No. 14-160004-89-956, Kentucky Endangered Species Program for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Asheville Field Office, Asheville, NC.
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.
USDA Plant Database. 2009. Eurybia saxicastellii. Accessed online February 1, 2010
<<http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=EUSA15>>

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 470

 Scientific Name:
Eurycea chamberlaini
Common Name:
Chamberlain's Dwarf Salamander
G Rank:
G5

IUCN Status:
DD - Data deficient

Range:
Chamberlain's Dwarf Salamander has been detected in the Piedmont region and central coastal
plain of North Carolina, the Piedmont region and upper coastal plain of South Carolina, and also
from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida (Harrison and Guttman 2003, NatureServe 2008). To further
delineate the range, genetic study is needed on the differentiation of E. chamberlaini from
E.quadridigitata.
Habitat:
Chamberlain’s Dwarf Salamander is a semi-terrestrial species that occurs in a variety of habitats
but generally occurs in seepage areas near ponds and streams, particulary in upper coastal plain
and Piedmont areas (Harrison and Guttman 2003, NatureServe 2008, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Information from 33 records in the files of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural History
indicates that they normally occupy the margins of streams or seepages (70 percent) or floodplain
or pond sites (30 percent) (A. Braswell, personal communication in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Ecology:
Chamberlain’s Dwarf Salamanders have a biphasic life cycle wiith semi-terrestrial adults and
aquatic eggs and larvae. This species breeds in the winter in North Carolina, but in the fall in South
Carolina (AmphibiaWeb 2009). Salamanders might have limited dispersal from upland areas to
wetlands for breeding. Brimley (1923) reported that eggs are deposited singly or in groups of 3-6
among downed leaves in seepages and spring areas, and most hatching takes place in March with
transformation 2-3 mo later (AmphibiaWeb 2009). Clutch size is likely 35-64 (Harrison and
Guttman 2003). It is thought that this species preys on amphipods, ostracods, cladocerans,
chironomid larvae, earthworms, several kinds of insects, spiders, pseudoscorpions, mites, ticks,
and millipedes (Carr 1940; McMillan and Semlitsch, 1980; Powders and Cate, 1980 in
AmphibiaWeb 2009). This salamander has a highly projectile tongue, and is likely a sit-and-wait
predator. This species is likely preyed upon by crayfish, predaceous insects, large spiders, small
snakes, and birds.
Populations:
There are 21 known sites for this species in North and South Carolina (Harrison and Guttman
2003). Overall population size is unknown.
Population Trends:
The long-term population trend for Chamberlain's Dwarf Salamander is moderately declining to
relatively stable (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
Chamberlain's Dwarf Salamander is critically imperiled (S1) in Georgia, vulnerable in North
Carolina (S3), and not ranked in Florida and South Carolina (NatureServe 2008). It lacks legal
protective status.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 471

 Habitat destruction:
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission reports that the seep habitats on which
this salamander depends are highly threatened by altered hydrologic regime
(myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Seepage.pdf, p. 311) and that forested habitats which
support this salamander face numerous threats including altered fire regime and community
structure, fragmentation, degradation, and conversion
(http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Mixed_Hardwood_Pine.pdf, p. 263).
Florida's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy states that this species' habitat is
threatened by agricultural conversion, groundwater withdrawal, development, and forestry
(www.masgc.org/gmrp/plans/FL%20FWCII.pdf, p. 231).
This salamander is potentially threatened by habitat degradation due to new construction at the
Dept. of Energy Savannah River Site (U.S. DOE 2005, http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs/envbul/ea1538_12-08-05.pdf).
There has been widespread destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of imperiled amphibian
habitats in the Southeast (Vial and Saylor 1993, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994 in LaClaire 1997, p.
314). Dodd (1997) states: “The integrity of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats is important to
amphibian survival, even among species that never venture beyond a single habitat type.
Furthermore, the various life history stages (eggs, larvae, young, adults) may be differentially
susceptible or sensitive to environmental perturbations . . . Although vast areas have been cleared
in the Southeast for agriculture, industry, and urban use, there is virtually no assessment of the
landscape effects of land conversion on amphibian populations. It seems evident, however, that
habitat changes (see papers in Hackney et al. 1992, Boyce and Martin 1993), and with them
changes in aquatic amphibian populations, have been enormous” (p. 177-8).
Habitat loss and degradation obviously negatively affects amphibian populations. LaClaire (1997)
states: “There is a growing body of work documenting (amphibian) population declines on sites
where habitats have been degraded or destroyed (Vickers et al. 1985, Enge and Marion 1986, Ash
1988, Dodd 1991, Raymond and Hardy 1991, Petranka et al. 1993, Phelps and Lancia 1995,
Means et al. 1996). . . Clearly, when the habitat of a given population is destroyed, that population
has gone or will shortly go extinct. Many species may be unable to recolonize areas after local
extinctions, especially when unsuitable habitat exists between the extinct population and extant
populations” (p. 325-326).
Habitat fragmentation can lead to amphibian population extirpation by disrupting metapopulation
dynamics and preventing dispersal and rescue between source and sink habitat. Dodd (1997)
states: “Land use patterns resulting in fragmentation can influence amphibian population genetic
structure . . . if populations become overly fragmented, emigration and immigration may be
inhibited or stopped, thus preventing recolonization from source populations. . . Small isolated
populations are particularly susceptible to environmental perturbations and to stochastic variation
in demography that can lead to extinction even without external perturbations. Isolation by habitat
fragmentation thus becomes a threat to the regional persistence of species” (p. 178).
Logging is detrimental for both aquatic and terrestrial amphibian habitat because it eliminates
shade, increases soil and water temperature, alters stream flow, increases sedimentation, reduces
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 472

 the input of coarse woody debris and organic matter into streams, reduces forest floor litter
(especially if litter is piled and burned), reduces soil moisture, reduces and eliminates burrows
and hiding places, and destroys wetlands. Logging also frequently involves the use of herbicides
which can be detrimental for amphibians (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html).
Logging is known to decrease amphibian abundance and reproductive success (Dodd 1997,
LaClaire 1997). LaClaire (1997) states: “Habitat destruction and degradation resulting from
timbering operations may create problems for long-term survival of imperiled amphibians
(Kramer et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1993)” (p. 327).
Aquatic amphibian populations are threatened by habitat destruction and water pollution from coal
mining activities in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and by
phosphate mining in Florida (Wallace et al. 1992, LaClaire 2007).
Dodd (1997) states: “In many instances, mining occurs directly through small streams or ponds,
and mine tailings are pushed into the larger rivers. . . Mining not only destroys aquatic amphibian
habitats outright, it also results in toxic pollution, decreased pH, and siltation of streams and
rivers” (p. 180). Gore (1983) showed that low pH and high conductivity due to mining negatively
affect the distribution of larval Desmognathus salamanders in streams on the Cumberland Plateau
(in Dodd 1997).
Road construction and repair and traffic degrade amphibian habitat. Roads can divide breeding
locations from overwintering sites and increase mortality for migrating adults and dispersing
juveniles, and can disrupt metapopulation dynamics and lead to population isolation, and light and
noise from roads can disrupt breeding and feeding behaviors (Dodd 1997). Dodd (1997) states:
“Transportation corridors, especially roads, can have serious deleterious effects on amphibian
populations (Langton 1989). Road construction can lead to habitat destruction in both terrestrial
and aquatic environments, and can negatively alter breeding habitats through increased siltation.
Increased siltation can lead to increased amphibian mortality because of its own secondary
effects. For example, nearly all aquatic life was eliminated downstream after U.S. HWY 441 was
rebuilt in 1963 in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park” (p. 180).
Overutilization:
This salamander is potentially threatened by overcollection. Amphibians are collected from the
wild for use as food, pets, and for the biological and medicinal supply markets (AmphibiaWeb
2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/exploitation.html). Dodd (1997) states: “Collecting
specimens for the pet trade or biological laboratories probably has had some impact on local
(Southeast) amphibian populations, but few data are available” (p. 183).
Disease or predation:
New diseases and increased susceptibility of amphibians to existing diseases are known to be
contributing to the decline of amphibian species (Blaustein et al. 1994, Laurance et al. 1996,
Berger et al. 1998, Daszak 2000, Kiesecker et al. 2001, see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/diseases.html). Stress from factors such as habitat loss and
fragmentation, chemical pollution, climate change, invasion of exotic species, increased UV-B
radiation, and natural population fluctuations may increase the susceptibility of amphibians to
disease (Carey 1993, Dodd 1997, Fellers et al. 2001, Kiesecker at al. 2001, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Pathogens known to cause infectious disease in amphibians include bacterial, fungal, viral,
metazoan, water mold, and trematode agents (Wright and Whitaker 2001 in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), has had severe impacts on
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 473

 amphibian populations worldwide. Chytrid fungus is known to be present in the southeastern U.S.
(AmphibiaWeb 2009) and thus potentially threatens this species. In addition to disease, there has
been a widespread increase of amphibian deformities and malformations
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/deformities.html).
Native amphibians in the Southeast potentially face predation pressures from introduced species
of fishes and from cattle egrets, armadillos, and wild hogs (Dodd 1997). Amphibian populations
can also be negatively affected by increases in populations of native predators such as raccoons
(Dodd 1997) and corvids (Liebezeit 2002).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Chamberlain’s Dwarf Salamander has no legal protective status (AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Other factors:
This salamander is also threatened by pollution, acidification, climate change, invasive species, and
synergies between multiple threats. On threats to cave-dwelling organisms, Scott (2004) states:
“Subterranean ecosystems, aquatic and terrestrial, are extremely delicate environments with stable,
constant temperatures, humidity, air circulation patterns, chemical characteristics, and detrital
inputs. Even minor perturbative events can result in large kills of cave fauna. Threats include
agricultural, industrial, and residential pollutants, especially pesticides and herbicides (which may
simply leach through soils); erosion and siltation caused by destruction of vegetation at sink
perimeters; changes in detrital input; pumping of water; collection of fauna; invasive exotic
species; and disturbance of fauna or nutrient reserves by spelunkers and divers. Humans have
slaughtered entire bat colonies in some caves and caused partial or total abandonment of others,
depleting the guano that supplies important nourishment for many cave invertebrates. Degradation
of surface habitats may also threaten cave fauna” (p. 77).
Other factors which threaten imperiled amphibian populations in the Southeast include water
pollution from acidification, toxins, and endocrine disrupting chemicals, reduced prey availability,
climate change, UV-B radiation, invasive species, and synergistic effects from these and other
threats.
Acidification of soils and water bodies is detrimental for amphibians. Acidification of amphibian
habitat can result from acid precipitation and from acid mine drainage. Acid disrupts ion balance in
both terrestrial and aquatic lifestages of amphibians, impairs chemosensory reception, and inhibits
larval feeding (Dodd 1997). Embryos and larvae are particularly sensitive to decreased pH.
Terrestrial salamanders avoid acidified soils. Acidification also has indirect effects which can kill
embryos, larvae, and adults by interfering with egg development, disrupting trophic interactions,
and inducing chronic environmental stress. Low pH also makes amphibians more susceptible to
deleterious effects from heavy metals and increased UV-B radiation (Dodd 1997).
Environmental toxins pose a threat to amphibians in the Southeast due to lethal and sub-lethal
effects which can include mortality, decreased growth rate, behavioral and developmental
abnormalities, lowered reproductive success, weakened immunity, and hermaphroditism (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to toxic
substances because of the permeable nature of their skin. A wide range of chemical stressors are
known to negatively affect amphibians including heavy metals, pesticides, phenols, carbon
tetrachloride, nitrogen based fertilizers, and road salt (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009). The
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 474

 presence of toxins can also make amphibians more susceptible to disease (Dodd 1997).
Amphibians are also threatened by endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment (eg. Hayes
et al. 2006). Dodd (1997) states: “Amphibians are likely to be especially sensitive to the action of
endocrine mimics because they are in close direct contact with chemicals in their environment,
and the amphibian skin and egg capsule are highly permeable. Because hormones normally
function in minute quantities and are vital to normal development, susceptibility to xenobiotics
could be devastating during the complex changes that occur during hormonally-induced amphibian
metamorphosis” (p. 182).
Toxins and other chemicals can also harm amphibians by reducing food availability. Dodd (1997)
states: “If species that are preyed upon by amphibians decline or disappear, amphibian populations
may be expected to follow suit. The use of pesticides and the influence of toxics, pH, and habitat
alteration all may be expected to affect amphibian prey populations” (p. 184).
Climate change poses a threat for amphibians because it will alter rainfall and temperature patterns
and affect soil moisture (Dodd 1997, Field et al. 2007). Amphibians are particularly sensitive to
minute changes in moisture and temperature, and changes in climate can affect breeding behavior,
reproductive success, and immune function (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ClimateChange.html). Amphibians which breed in temporary
ponds or in water bodies that are sensitive to changes in groundwater level are particularly
susceptible to climate change effects. Drought can lead to localized extirpation, which combined
with habitat fragmentation and impaired dispersal, can contribute to extinction (Dodd 1997).
During the past few decades, levels of UV-B radiation in the atmosphere have significantly
increased. For amphibians, UV-B radiation can cause direct mortality as well as sublethal effects
including decreased hatching success, decreased growth rate, developmental abnormalities, and
immune dysfunction (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/UVB.html).
Southeastern amphibians are also threatened by the invasion of non-native species which prey on
or compete with native amphibians.
Nonnative fishes can negatively affect amphibian populations through predation, competition, and
disease introduction. Introduced nonnative amphibians such as the marine toad (Bufo marinus) and
Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) are potentially harmful for native amphibians in the
Southeast. Rossi (1981) found that anuran species richness was reduced in an area where B.
marinus was established (in Dodd 1997). Introduced mammals, such as armadillos and wild hogs,
and introduced birds like cattle egrets “may exact a substantial toll on amphibian populations”
(Dodd 1997). Invasive fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also a potential threat for Southeastern
amphibians. Dodd (1997) states: “Ground dwelling vertebrates are especially sensitive to this
ravenous predator, and fire ants have been reported to kill endangered Houston toads (Bufo
houstonensis) as they metamorphose. Fire ants are especially abundant in the moist perimeter
surrounding ponds and lakes, and they can float in mats across ponds from vegetation clump to
vegetation clump. Fire ants have few predators and have expanded their range throughout the
Southeast” (p. 183). See: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/IntroSp.html.
Synergisms between multiple threats could contribute to the extinction of Southeast amphibians.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 475

 Multiple factors acting together have both lethal and sublethal effects
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/synergisms.html). For example, increased UV-B radiation
increases the susceptibility of amphibians to the effects of contaminants, pathogens and climate
change. Dodd (1997): “The amphibians of this area (the Southeast), and particularly the fully
aquatic species, face a multitude of threats to their long-term existence. These threats generally do
not act independently, but instead act in concert to have potentially serious long-term effects” (p.
185).
References:
Amphibiaweb. 2009. University of California, Berkeley. http://amphibiaweb.org/
Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1997. Imperiled amphibians: a historical persective. Pp. 165–200. In Benz, G.W.
and D.E. Collins (Eds.), Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication Number 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications,
Decatur, Georgia.
Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running and
M.J. Scott, 2007: North America. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 617-652.
http://www.ipccinfo.com/wg2report_north_america.php
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Seepage.
myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Seepage.pdf
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. Wildlife Habitats: Mixed Hardwood
Pine. http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Mixed_Hardwood_Pine.pdf
Harrison, J. R., III, and S. I. Guttman. 2003. A new species of Eurycea (Caudata: Plethodontidae)
from North and South Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist 2(2):159-178.
LaClaire, L.V. 1997. Amphibians in Peril: Resource Management in the Southeast. p. 307-321
In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern
Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and
Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Scott, C. 2004. Endangered and threatened animals of Florida and their habitats. Austin:
University of Texas Press. 315 pp.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005. Environmental assessment for the safeguards and
security upgrades for storage of plutonium materials at the Savannah River Site.
http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs/envbul/ea-1538_12-08-05.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 476

 Scientific Name:
Eurycea tynerensis
Common Name:
Oklahoma Salamander
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The range of the Oklahoma Salamander is poorly understood and needs further research.
AmphibiaWeb (2009) states that the distribution of known localities appears to be considerably
smaller than the proposed range. This species might be restricted to a small area in eastern
Oklahoma, because previously identified populations in Missouri and Arkansas could be a
different species (NatureServe 2008).
NatureServe (2008) states: "According to Bury et al. (1980), range includes the drainages of the
Neosho and Illinois rivers, Springfield Plateau section of Ozark plateaus of southwestern
Missouri (McDonald County), northwestern Arkansas (Benton, Washington, and Carroll
counties), and northeastern Oklahoma (Adair, Cherokee, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa counties).
Petranka (1998) also indicated that the range includes eastern Oklahoma, southwestern Missouri,
and northwestern Arkansas. However, preliminary electrophoretic data indicate that E. Tynerensis
is restricted to a few counties in eastern Oklahoma; populations in Arkansas and Missouri are not
genetically distinct from E. multiplicata griseogaster (Wilkinson, in Figg 1991). Johnson (2000)
accordingly did not recognize E. Tynerenis as a member of the Missouri herpetofauna."
Habitat:
Oklahoma Salamanders are found in shallow streams with slow current and medium-sized,
partially embedded rocks, and also in small springs and seeps with leaf litter and mud and detritus
substrate. They are most abundant in areas with high densities of invertebrates (Tumlison et al.
1990, Tumlison and Cline 1997, in AmphibiaWeb 2009). NatureServe (2008) describes their
habitat as small, clear, spring-fed streams with temperatures generally below 24 C, at elevations
below 305 m, with coarse sand, gravel, or bedrock substrate (Bury et al. 1980). The species is
commonly found in gravelly (primarily chert) substrates, in spaces between stones and pebbles in
loose, coarse sand under cold swift shallow water. During drought, the salamander seeks refuge
below the substrate (references cited by Tumlison et al. 1990).This salamander is associated with
Ordovician-Silurian strata (Tumlison and Cline 2003), and may use karst passages to move within
or between stream systems (Tumlison et al. 1990).
Ecology:
The Oklahoma Salamander is neotenic, meaning it is an aquatic obligate that reaches sexual maturity
while retaining juvenile body form (Conant and Collins 1998). Populations thus consist of permanently
aquatic, non-transforming individuals (Petranka 1998). Eggs are laid on the undersides of rocks, and
clutch size is estimated at 1-11. Gravid females have been detected in May and November (Moore and
Hughes 1939, Trauth et al. 1990, AmphibiaWeb 2009). Oklahoma Salamanders reach sexual maturity in
2–3 yr (Dundee, 1958) at approximately 26 mm SVL (Dundee, 1965b) (AmphibiaWeb 2009). This
species might undergo seasonal migrations. AmphibiaWeb (2009) states: "The discovery of
subterranean isopods (Caecidotea sp.) in the stomachs of two specimens and the location of many

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 477

 individuals in small, isolated springs distant from a main stream course led Tumlison and Cline (1997)
to propose that Oklahoma salamanders may be migrating along subterranean corridors to reach resourcerich habitats on the surface. However, high densities of Oklahoma salamanders in rather atypical
habitats might also be interpreted as a sequestering of all individuals into the last remaining moist
habitats to survive drought conditions." Oklahoma salamanders are sympatric with cave salamanders (E.
lucifuga), dark-sided salamanders (E. longicauda melanopleura), gray-bellied salamanders (E. m.
griseogaster), and grotto salamanders (Typhlotriton spelaeus). This species preys on dipterans,
ephemeropterans, plecopterans, coleopterans, trichopterans, hymenopterans, thysanopterans, odonates,
ostracods, isopods, amphipods, decapods, hydracarians, and pulmonates (Tumlison et al. 1990,
AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Populations:
Both number of populations and total population size of the Oklahoma Salamander are currently
unknown and in need of genetic research. The species was presumably detected at 50 of 213 sites
examined in three states (Tumlison and Cline 2003), but there is genetic uncertainty regarding the
distribution of this salamander, and it may only occur in Oklahoma (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) states that this salamander is probably stable to slightly declining in
population size, area of occupancy, and number/condition of occurrences over the short term,
with unknown trend over the long term. Cline and Tumlison (2001) found this species at 50
percent of historic sites in Oklahoma, and reported declines or extirpations from several
Status:
The Oklahoma Salamander is vulnerable in Arkansas and Oklahoma (S3) (NatureServe 2008). It is
classified as Near Threatened by the IUCN. It lacks legal protective status.
Habitat destruction:
Dodd (1997) reports that the Oklahoma Salamander is threatened by habitat alteration. NatureServe
(2008) states that it is threatened by direct habitat destruction (e.g., flooding by impoundments), and by
activities (agriculture, urbanization, stream channelization, gravel removal) that result in silting or
pollution of aquatic habitat (Bury et al. 1980). Bury et al. (1980) state: "Individuals are common where
there is suitable habitat, but such areas are rapidly being destroyed by construction projects. Other
threats are agricultural use, urbanization, and manipulation of the aquatic habitat" (p. 24). Cliine and
Tumlison (2001) report that this salamander is threatened by graveling operations, siltation from
livestock grazing, permanent flooding from damming of streams, and water diversion for livestock and
recreation. The State of Arkansas (2008) reports that the species is threatened by nutrient loading from
confined animal feeding operations, and by grazing, sedimentation, contaminants, and urban
development (http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/04a_amphibian.pdf).
There has been widespread destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of imperiled amphibian habitats
in the Southeast (Vial and Saylor 1993, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994 in LaClaire 1997, p. 314). Dodd
(1997) states: “The integrity of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats is important to amphibian survival,
even among species that never venture beyond a single habitat type. Furthermore, the various life history
stages (eggs, larvae, young, adults) may be differentially susceptible or sensitive to environmental
perturbations . . . Although vast areas have been cleared in the Southeast for agriculture, industry, and
urban use, there is virtually no assessment of the landscape effects of land conversion on amphibian
populations. It seems evident, however, that habitat changes (see papers in Hackney et al. 1992, Boyce
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 478

 and Martin 1993), and with them changes in aquatic amphibian populations, have been enormous” (p.
177-8).
Habitat loss and degradation obviously negatively affects amphibian populations. LaClaire (1997) states:
“There is a growing body of work documenting (amphibian) population declines on sites where habitats
have been degraded or destroyed (Vickers et al. 1985, Enge and Marion 1986, Ash 1988, Dodd 1991,
Raymond and Hardy 1991, Petranka et al. 1993, Phelps and Lancia 1995, Means et al. 1996). . . Clearly,
when the habitat of a given population is destroyed, that population has gone or will shortly go extinct.
Many species may be unable to recolonize areas after local extinctions, especially when unsuitable
habitat exists between the extinct population and extant populations” (p. 325-326).
Habitat fragmentation can lead to amphibian population extirpation by disrupting metapopulation
dynamics and preventing dispersal and rescue between source and sink habitat. Dodd (1997) states:
“Land use patterns resulting in fragmentation can influence amphibian population genetic structure . . . if
populations become overly fragmented, emigration and immigration may be inhibited or stopped, thus
preventing recolonization from source populations. . . Small isolated populations are particularly
susceptible to environmental perturbations and to stochastic variation in demography that can lead to
extinction even without external perturbations. Isolation by habitat fragmentation thus becomes a threat
to the regional persistence of species” (p. 178).
Logging is detrimental for both aquatic and terrestrial amphibian habitat because it eliminates shade,
increases soil and water temperature, alters stream flow, increases sedimentation, reduces the input of
coarse woody debris and organic matter into streams, reduces forest floor litter (especially if litter is
piled and burned), reduces soil moisture, reduces and eliminates burrows and hiding places, and destroys
wetlands. Logging also frequently involves the use of herbicides which can be detrimental for
amphibians (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Logging is known to decrease
amphibian abundance and reproductive success (Dodd 1997, LaClaire 1997). LaClaire (1997) states:
“Habitat destruction and degradation resulting from timbering operations may create problems for longterm survival of imperiled amphibians (Kramer et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1993)” (p. 327).
Aquatic amphibian populations are threatened by habitat destruction and water pollution from coal
mining activities in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and by
phosphate mining in Florida (Wallace et al. 1992, LaClaire 2007). Dodd (1997) states: “In many
instances, mining occurs directly through small streams or ponds, and mine tailings are pushed into the
larger rivers. . . Mining not only destroys aquatic amphibian habitats outright, it also results in toxic
pollution, decreased pH, and siltation of streams and rivers” (p. 180). Gore (1983) showed that low pH
and high conductivity due to mining negatively affect the distribution of larval Desmognathus
salamanders in streams on the Cumberland Plateau (in Dodd 1997).
Road construction and repair and traffic degrade amphibian habitat. Roads can divide breeding locations
from overwintering sites and increase mortality for migrating adults and dispersing juveniles, and can
disrupt metapopulation dynamics and lead to population isolation, and light and noise from roads can
disrupt breeding and feeding behaviors (Dodd 1997). Dodd (1997) states: “Transportation corridors,
especially roads, can have serious deleterious effects on amphibian populations (Langton 1989). Road
construction can lead to habitat destruction in both terrestrial and aquatic environments, and can
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 479

 negatively alter breeding habitats through increased siltation. Increased siltation can lead to increased
amphibian mortality because of its own secondary effects. For example, nearly all aquatic life was
eliminated downstream after U.S. HWY 441 was rebuilt in 1963 in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park” (p. 180).
Overutilization:
Amphibians are collected from the wild for use as food, pets, and for the biological and medicinal
supply markets (AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/exploitation.html). Dodd
(1997) states: “Collecting specimens for the pet trade or biological laboratories probably has had
some impact on local (Southeast) amphibian populations, but few data are available” (p. 183).
Disease or predation:
New diseases and increased susceptibility of amphibians to existing diseases are known to be
contributing to the decline of amphibian species (Blaustein et al. 1994, Laurance et al. 1996,
Berger et al. 1998, Daszak 2000, Kiesecker et al. 2001, see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/diseases.html). Stress from factors such as habitat loss and
fragmentation, chemical pollution, climate change, invasion of exotic species, increased UV-B
radiation, and natural population fluctuations may increase the susceptibility of amphibians to
disease (Carey 1993, Dodd 1997, Fellers et al. 2001, Kiesecker at al. 2001, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Pathogens known to cause infectious disease in amphibians include bacterial, fungal, viral,
metazoan, water mold, and trematode agents (Wright and Whitaker 2001 in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), has had severe impacts on
amphibian populations worldwide. Chytrid fungus is known to be present in the southeastern U.S.
(AmphibiaWeb 2009) and it is imperative that equipment be disinfected so that research efforts to
protect species do not inadvertently introduce this fungus or other pathogens to imperiled
amphibian populations. In addition to disease, there has been a widespread increase of amphibian
deformities and malformations (http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/deformities.html).
Native amphibians in the Southeast potentially face predation pressures from introduced species
of fishes and from cattle egrets, armadillos, and wild hogs (Dodd 1997). Amphibian populations
can also be negatively affected by increases in populations of native predators such as raccoons
(Dodd 1997) and corvids (Liebezeit 2002).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no regulatory mechanisms that protect the Oklahoma Salamander. It was previously
listed as Rare in Missouri, but is no longer considered a valid taxon in that state. It is a species of
special concern in Arkansas and Oklahoma, but this designation does not provide any protection.
NatureServe (2008) reports that one site where this species occurs is at a church camp, which
might provide some habitat protection, but not necessarily.
Other factors:
The Oklahoma salamander is threatened by water pollution and may be threatened by other factors
which widely threaten southeastern amphibians.
This salamander sometimes uses karst passages. On threats to cave-dwelling organisms, Scott
(2004) states: “Subterranean ecosystems, aquatic and terrestrial, are extremely delicate
environments with stable, constant temperatures, humidity, air circulation patterns, chemical
characteristics, and detrital inputs. Even minor perturbative events can result in large kills of cave
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 480

 fauna. Threats include agricultural, industrial, and residential pollutants, especially pesticides and
herbicides (which may simply leach through soils); erosion and siltation caused by destruction of
vegetation at sink perimeters; changes in detrital input; pumping of water; collection of fauna;
invasive exotic species; and disturbance of fauna or nutrient reserves by spelunkers and divers.
Humans have slaughtered entire bat colonies in some caves and caused partial or total
abandonment of others, depleting the guano that supplies important nourishment for many cave
invertebrates. Degradation of surface habitats may also threaten cave fauna” (p. 77).
Other factors which threaten imperiled amphibian populations in the Southeast include water
pollution from acidification, toxins, and endocrine disrupting chemicals, reduced prey availability,
climate change, UV-B radiation, invasive species, and synergistic effects from these and other
threats. NatureServe (2008) states that "being permanently aquatic leaves the Oklahoma
Salamander particularly vulnerable to alterations in water quality and pollutants."
Acidification of soils and water bodies is detrimental for amphibians. Acidification of amphibian
habitat can result from acid precipitation and from acid mine drainage. Acid disrupts ion balance in
both terrestrial and aquatic lifestages of amphibians, impairs chemosensory reception, and inhibits
larval feeding (Dodd 1997). Embryos and larvae are particularly sensitive to decreased pH.
Terrestrial salamanders avoid acidified soils. Acidification also has indirect effects which can kill
embryos, larvae, and adults by interfering with egg development, disrupting trophic interactions,
and inducing chronic environmental stress. Low pH also makes amphibians more susceptible to
deleterious effects from heavy metals and increased UV-B radiation (Dodd 1997).
Environmental toxins pose a threat to amphibians in the Southeast due to lethal and sub-lethal
effects which can include mortality, decreased growth rate, behavioral and developmental
abnormalities, lowered reproductive success, weakened immunity, and hermaphroditism (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to toxic
substances because of the permeable nature of their skin. A wide range of chemical stressors are
known to negatively affect amphibians including heavy metals, pesticides, phenols, carbon
tetrachloride, nitrogen based fertilizers, and road salt (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009). The
presence of toxins can also make amphibians more susceptible to disease (Dodd 1997).
Amphibians are also threatened by endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment (eg. Hayes
et al. 2006). Dodd (1997) states: “Amphibians are likely to be especially sensitive to the action of
endocrine mimics because they are in close direct contact with chemicals in their environment,
and the amphibian skin and egg capsule are highly permeable. Because hormones normally
function in minute quantities and are vital to normal development, susceptibility to xenobiotics
could be devastating during the complex changes that occur during hormonally-induced amphibian
metamorphosis” (p. 182).
Toxins and other chemicals can also harm amphibians by reducing food availability. Dodd (1997)
states: “If species that are preyed upon by amphibians decline or disappear, amphibian populations

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 481

 may be expected to follow suit. The use of pesticides and the influence of toxics, pH, and habitat
alteration all may be expected to affect amphibian prey populations” (p. 184).
Climate change poses a threat for amphibians because it will alter rainfall and temperature patterns
and affect soil moisture (Dodd 1997, Field et al. 2007). Amphibians are particularly sensitive to
minute changes in moisture and temperature, and changes in climate can affect breeding behavior,
reproductive success, and immune function (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ClimateChange.html). Amphibians which breed in temporary
ponds or in water bodies that are sensitive to changes in groundwater level are particularly
susceptible to climate change effects. Drought can lead to localized extirpation, which combined
with habitat fragmentation and impaired dispersal, can contribute to extinction (Dodd 1997).
During the past few decades, levels of UV-B radiation in the atmosphere have significantly
increased. For amphibians, UV-B radiation can cause direct mortality as well as sublethal effects
including decreased hatching success, decreased growth rate, developmental abnormalities, and
immune dysfunction (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/UVB.html).
Southeastern amphibians are also threatened by the invasion of non-native species which prey on
or compete with native amphibians. Nonnative fishes can negatively affect amphibian populations
through predation, competition, and disease introduction. Introduced nonnative amphibians such as the
marine toad (Bufo marinus) and Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) are potentially harmful for
native amphibians in the Southeast. Rossi (1981) found that anuran species richness was reduced in an
area where B. marinus was established (in Dodd 1997). Introduced mammals, such as armadillos and
wild hogs, and introduced birds like cattle egrets “may exact a substantial toll on amphibian
populations” (Dodd 1997). Invasive fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also a potential threat for
Southeastern amphibians. Dodd (1997) states: “Ground dwelling vertebrates are especially sensitive to
this ravenous predator, and fire ants have been reported to kill endangered Houston toads (Bufo
houstonensis) as they metamorphose. Fire ants are especially abundant in the moist perimeter
surrounding ponds and lakes, and they can float in mats across ponds from vegetation clump to
vegetation clump. Fire ants have few predators and have expanded their range throughout the
Southeast” (p. 183). See: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/IntroSp.html.
Synergisms between multiple threats could contribute to the extinction of Southeast amphibians.
Multiple factors acting together have both lethal and sublethal effects
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/synergisms.html). For example, increased UV-B radiation
increases the susceptibility of amphibians to the effects of contaminants, pathogens and climate
change. Dodd (1997): “The amphibians of this area (the Southeast), and particularly the fully
aquatic species, face a multitude of threats to their long-term existence. These threats generally do
not act independently, but instead act in concert to have potentially serious long-term effects” (p.
185).
References:
Amphibiaweb. 2009. University of California, Berkeley. http://amphibiaweb.org/
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. 2008. Aquatic Amphibian Report.
http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/04a_amphibian.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 482

 Bury, R. B., C. K. Dodd, Jr., and G. M. Fellers. 1980. Conservation of the Amphibia of the
United States: a review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., Resource Publication
134. 34 pp.
Cline, G.R. and R. Tumlison. 2001. Distribution and Relative Abundance of the Oklahoma
Salamander (Eurycea tynerensis). Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 81:1-10(2001).
Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1997. Imperiled amphibians: a historical persective. Pp. 165–200. In Benz, G.W.
and D.E. Collins (Eds.), Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication Number 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications,
Decatur, Georgia.
Enge, K.M. 2005. Herpetofaunal drift-fence surveys of steephead ravines in the Florida
Panhandle. Southeastern Naturalist 4(4):657-678.
Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running and
M.J. Scott, 2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F.
Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 617-652. http://www.ipccinfo.com/wg2report_north_america.php
Hayes, T.B. et al. 2006. Pesticide Mixtures,Endocrine Disruption,and Amphibian Declines: Are
We Underestimating the Impact?. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(1).
LaClaire, L.V. 1997. Amphibians in Peril: Resource Management in the Southeast. p. 307-321
In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern
Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and
Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Liebezeit, Joseph R. A summary of predation by corvids on threatened and endangered species in
California and management recommendations to reduce corvid predation / principal
investigators and authors, Joseph R. Liebezeit and T. Luke George.
Scott, C. 2004. Endangered and threatened animals of Florida and their habitats. Austin:
University of Texas Press. 315 pp.
Tumlison, R., and G. R. Cline. 2003. Association between the Oklahoma salamander (Eurycea
tynerensis) and Ordovician-Silurian strata. Southwestern Naturalist 48:93-95.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 483

 Scientific Name:
Fallicambarus burrisi
Common Name:
Burrowing Bog Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Burrowing Bog crayfish is currently known from the Escambia River drainage in Washington
County, Alabama, Jackson County, Mississippi and the Chickawawhay River drainage in Green
County, Mississippi (NatureServe 2008). In Alabama, the species is known from only two
database records from the Escatawpa River system in southwestern Alabama (Mirarchi et al.,
2004).
Habitat:
According to Fitzpatrick (1987), F. burrisis burrows in saturated sandy soils of hillside Sarracenia
bogs. All specimens were found in pitcher plant bogs in the Chichasawhay and Escatawpa
drainages of Alabama and Mississippi. It is always burrowing, usually into sandy clay substrate.
The burrows exhibit complex branching patterns, and there is usually water running through habitat
(except in midsummer). Johnson and Fiegiel (1995) report that this species' bog habitat is turning
into a terrestrial environment. The species can be found in ditches and seeps, so it might not be
confined to pitcher plant bogs.
Populations:
In Alabama, this species known from only two database records from the Escatawpa River system
in southwestern Alabama (in Mobile Bay and Pascagoula drainages) (Mirarchi et al., 2004;
appendix 1.2; Schuster and Taylor, 2004; Schuster et al., 2008). There are estimated to be between
6 and 20 total populations (NatureServe 2008) with 100-2500 total individuals.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled in Mississippi and vulnerable in Alabama. It
was a C2 Candidate species under the federal ESA before that list was abolished. It is ranked as
threatened by the American Fisheries Society and as vulnerable by the IUCN. Guiasu (2007)
states that F. burrisi and F. gordoni "have not only small ranges, but also apparently very specific
and narrow habitat requirements. Both species seem to be found only in pitcher plant bogs."
Therefore, "they require special attention from a conservation standpoint."
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) suggests that removal of pitcher plant bogs is long-term threat. The U.S.
Forest Service (2008) reports that in the range of Fallicambarus burrisi, "the viability of many of
the rare crustaceans is most threatened because of their small ranges. Impacts to habitats that
would reduce or extirpate local populations of other taxonomic groups might result in extinction
of some crustaceans. Crayfish are somewhat tolerant of desiccation, but permanent conversion of
wetlands to pasture or urban uses could eliminate populations and lead to extinctions."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Part of the range of this species includes the DeSoto National Forest in Mississippi. No existing
regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 484

 References:
Fitzpatrick, J. F., Jr. 1987. Fallicambarus (Creaserinus) burrisi and F. (C.) gordoni, two new
burrowing crawfishes associsted with pitcher plant bogs in Mississippi and Alabama (Decapoda:
Cambridae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 100(3):433-446.
Guiasu, R.C. 2007. Conservation and Diversity of the Crayfishes of the Genus Fallicambarus
Hobbs, 1969 (Decapoda, Cambaridae), with an Emphasis on the Status of Fallicambarus fodiens
(Cottle, 1863) in Canada . Crustaceana 80:2 (207 -223).
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Johnston, C. and Fiegiel, C. 1995. Population estimates, microhabitat parameters and life history
characteristics of FALLICAMBARUS BURRISI, and FALLICAMBARUS GORDONI, two
crayfishes associated with pitcher plant bogs in Southern Mississippi: final report to USFWS,
the Mississippi Wildlife Heritage Program and National Forests in Mississippi: 1995 December
31; Jackson, MS 18p
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil.
2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for
Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.; appendix 1.2
pub. Separately
Schuster, G.A., C.A. Taylor, and J. Johansen. 2008. An annotated checklist and preliminary
designation of drainage distributions of the crayfishes of Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3):
493-504.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
US Forest Service (2008) Southern Forest Resource Assessment; Chapter 23, Aquatic Animals
and their Habitats. Available online at
http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_23e.pdf. Last accessed April 11, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 485

 Scientific Name:
Fallicambarus danielae
Common Name:
Speckled Burrowing Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Speckled Burrowing crayfish occurs spottily in Mobile County, Alabama, and Marrison,
Jackson, Scott and Stone counties, Mississippi. The exact range and relationships of several
populations of this species, and the closely related and environmentally equavilent F. burris and F.
byersi need to be determined (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
F. danielae is found almost exclusively in pitcher plant bogs or on the edges of such as a primary
burrower (NatureServe 2008). The dominant vegetation in its habitat is Sarracenia spp., Drosera
spp. and other bog species.
Populations:
In Alabama, this species is known from four records from the Mobile and Pascagoula River
systems (AL NHP; Mirarchi et al., 2004, appendix 1.2 pub. separately; Schuster and Taylor, 2004;
Schuster et al., 2008). Information on population size and trend is not available.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Alabama and imperiled in
Mississippi. The State of Alabama lists it as a Priority 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need,
while Mississippi considers it a Tier 2 SGCN. It was a Federal C-2 Candidate Species until that
list was abolished. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as Threatened by the American
Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2010) states that it is likely that this species is undergoing localized declines in
areas of urbanization or in areas where there are alterations to the hydrological regime or water
pollution. The pitcher plant habitats on which this species depends are apparently being drained
for development even when no immediate alternate use is in sight. This species apparently does
not survive the destruction/draining of its habitat and is unable to adjust to a modified environment.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that it is unknown whether any occurrences are appropriately
protected and managed
This species occurs on the DeSoto National Forest in Mississippi, where it is considered a Forest
Service Sensitive Species, but this designation confers only discretionary protection.
Other factors:
Guiasu (2007) reports that Fallicambarus species have fairly limited to very limited distributions and are
particularly vulnerable intrinsically to decline and extirpation.
NatureServe (2008) reports that Fallicambarus species are imperiled by pollution, "including air, water
and soil pollution as these species spend time burrowing and in temporary waters."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 486

 This crayfish may also be threatened by global climate change. NatureServe (2008) states: "Because
burrowing crayfish tend to prefer warmer climates and the milder and shorter winters currently found in
southeastern areas of the U.S. and because they live in semi-terrestrial habitats sometimes far removed
from permanent water todies, they are often prevented from expanding their ranges and, theoretically
may be susceptible to the effects of global warming."
Competition from introduced crayfish species (Orconectes rusticus, Procambarus clarkii, Cambarus
robustus) is considered a threat to the species in this genus (Guiasu 2007).
References:
Fitzpatrick, Joseph F., Jr. Department of Biological Scienc es, University of South Alabama,
Mobile, AL 36688. (205)46 0-6331.
Guiasu, R.C. 2007. Conservation And Diversity Of The Crayfishes Of The Genus Fallicambarus
Hobbs, 1969 (Decapoda, Cambaridae), With An Emphasis On The Status Of Fallicamb arus
Fodiens (Cottle, 1863) In Canada. Crustaceana 80 (2): 207-223.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1975. New crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) from the southern United States
and Mexico. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 201: 1-34.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil.
2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for
Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.
Schuster, G. A. and C.A. Taylor. 2004. Report on the crayfishes of Alabama: literature and
museum database review, species list with abbreviated annotations and proposed conservation
statuses. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report, 2004(12): 47 pp.
Schuster, G.A., C.A. Taylor, and J. Johansen. 2008. An annotated checklist and preliminary designation
of drainage distributions of the crayfishes of Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3): 493-504.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole, Arnold
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 487

 G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E., Thoma, Roger
F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United States and Canada after
10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389.
U.S. Forest Service May 2008. Environmental Assessment for National Forests in Mississippi Route Designation. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/mississippi/travel/Route%20Designation%20EA.pdf. Last accessed June
28, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 488

 Scientific Name:
Fallicambarus gilpini
Common Name:
Jefferson County Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the total range of F. gilipini is less than 100-250 square km (less
than about 40 to 100 square miles). It is currently known only from the type locality in Jefferson
County, Arkansas (Robison and Allen 1995).
Habitat:
Fallicambarus gilpini digs complex burrows on slopes in seepage areas (NatureServe 2008). The
species may prefer flowing groundwater rather than static (Robison and Allen 1995).
Populations:
This species has been collected only once from one location, with three females and no males
captured (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this very rare species.
Status:
Fallicambarus gilpini is extremely rare, being known only from the type locality and three
specimens (NatureServe 2008). Within Arkansas and globally its status is critically imperiled
(NatureServe 2008). It was a Federal C2 candidate species until that list was abolished. It is
ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as endangered by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
The Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (2008) reports that this species' habitat is threatened by road
construction and hydrological alteration from forestry.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this rare species.
Other factors:
This species is threatened by water pollution from logging activities including herbicides and
sedimentation (Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan 2008).
References:
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. 2008. Aquatic and Terrestrial Crayfish Report. Available online
at www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/08crayfish.pdf, last accessed March 31, 2009.
Guiasu, R.C. 2007. Conservation And Diversity Of The Crayfishes Of The Genus
Fallicambarus Hobbs, 1969 (Decapoda, Cambaridae), With An Emphasis On The Status Of
Fallicamb arus Fodiens (Cottle, 1863) In Canada. Crustaceana 80 (2): 207-223.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 489

 Hobbs, H. H. Jr. and H. W. Robison, 1989. On the crayfish genus Fallicambarus (Decapoda:
Cambaridae) in Arkansas, with notes on the fodiens complex and descriptions of two new
species. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 102(3):651-697.
Robison, H.W. and R.T. Allen. 1995. Only in Arkansas: A Study of the Endemic Plants and
Animals of the State. University of Arkansas Press: Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 490

 Scientific Name:
Fallicambarus harpi
Common Name:
Ouachita Burrowing Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
NatureServe (2008) estimates the range of Fallicambarus harpi to be 100-250 square km (about
40-100 square miles). This crayfish is endemic to the southern Ouachitas and is known from 12
sites in Garland, Hot Spring, Montgomery, and Pike counties, Arkansas (Robison and Crump
2004).
Habitat:
The Ouachita Burrowing crayfish digs burrows in grassy areas with a high water table. It is
associated with Pinus, Quercus, and Cornus florida at the type locality (Robison and Allen 1995).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that F. harpi has 6 - 20 populations with less than 1000 total
individuals. It was initially known from only two sites in Pike County, Arkansas (Hobbs and
Robison, 1985; Robison and Allen, 1995). The two known localities are within 0.1 miles of each
other. It is now known from 12 sites in Garland, Hot Spring, Montgomery, and Pike Counties,
Arkansas (Robison and Crump, 2004). Population size is unknown.
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled. AFS now lists it as threatened
(Taylor et al 2007) rather than endangered. It was also a Federal C-2 Candidate species until that
list was abolished. It is classifed as endangered by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
According to the Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (2008), this species faces threats from road
construction, which involves habitat destruction and toxic contamination, and recommends that
this species be protected from construction activities and herbicide applications.
NatureServe (2008) reports that species in this genus are threatened by habitat destruction and
degradation due to habitat modification for agriculture and wetland destruction.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species occurs on the Ouchita National Forest, where it is a Species of Viability Concern
(USFS 2005) but this designation provides no regulatory protection. NatureServe (2008) reports
that it is unknown whether any occurrences are appropriately protected and managed.
Other factors:
NatureServe (2008) reports that Fallicambarus species are widely threatened by pollution, "including air,
water and soil pollution as these species spend time burrowing and in temporary waters."
This species may be threatened by global climate change, "because burrowing crayfish tend to prefer
warmer climates and the milder and shorter winters currently found in southeastern areas of the U.S. and

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 491

 because they live in semi-terrestrial habitats sometimes far removed from permanent water todies, they
are often prevented from expanding their ranges and, theoretically may be susceptible to the effects of
global warming" (NatureServe 2008).
This species may also be threatened by competition from introduced crayfish species (Orconectes
rusticus, Procambarus clarkii, Cambarus robustus) (Guiasu 2007).
References:
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. 2008. Aquatic and Terrestrial Crayfish Report. Available online
at www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/08crayfish.pdf, last accessed September 5,
2009.
Guiasu, R.C. 2007. Conservation And Diversity Of The Crayfishes Of The Genus Fallicambarus
Hobbs, 1969 (Decapoda, Cambaridae), With An Emphasis On The Status Of Fallicamb arus
Fodiens (Cottle, 1863) In Canada. Crustaceana 80 (2): 207-223.
Hobbs, H. H. Jr. and H. W. Robison, 1989. On the crayfish genus Fallicambarus (Decapoda:
Cambaridae) in Arkansas, with notes on the fodiens complex and descriptions of two new
species. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 102(3):651-697.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr., and H. Robison. 1985. A new burrowing crayfish (Decapoda: Cambaridae)
from southwestern Arkansas. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
98(4):1035-1041.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Robison, H.W. and B. Crump, 2004. Distribution, natural history aspects, and status of the
Arkansas endemic crayfish, Fallicambarus harpi Hobbs and Robison, 1985. Journal of the
Arkansas Academy of Science, 58: 91-94.
Robison, H.W. and R.T. Allen. 1995. Only in Arkansas: A Study of the Endemic Plants and
Animals of the State. University of Arkansas Press: Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole, Arnold
G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E., Thoma, Roger
F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United States and Canada after
10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 492

 U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Ouachita National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix E, Biological Resources. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/ouachita/planning/documents/feis_AppendixE_biological.pdf. Last
accessed September 5, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 493

 Scientific Name:
Fallicambarus hortoni
Common Name:
Hatchie Burrowing Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
F. hortoni is known only from immediate vicinity of the type-locality in McNaivy County,
Tennessee (Hobbs 1989).
Habitat:
The Hatchie Burrowing crayfish digs simple shallow burrows in sandy soil (NatureServe 2008). F.
hortoni is found in sandy soil with only short herbaceous flora, and small Salix nigra at the water's
edge (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
The only known colony of this species probably does not exceed 100 adults (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this rare species.
Status:
Due to its restricted range and small population, the status of Fallicambarus hortoni is critically
imperiled (NatureServe 2008). The State of Tennessee, the American Fisheries Society, and the
IUCN list it as Endangered.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat destruction and degradation from agriculture and pollution are the main threats to all
Fallicambarus crayfishes, including the Hatchie burrowing crayfish (NatureServe 2008).
Fallicambarus hortoni occurs in the same area in Tennessee as a proposed National Park Service
expansion of the Corinth Civil War Battlefield (National Park Service 2004). Increased
development and visitation could negatively impact this species' habitat
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species is listed as endangered by the state of Tennessee, but this designation provides no
regulatory protection for the species' habitat.
Other factors:
This species is potentially threatened by global climate change. NatureServe (2008) states:
"Because burrowing crayfish tend to prefer warmer climates and the milder and shorter winters
currently found in southeastern areas of the U.S. and because they live in semi-terrestrial habitats
sometimes far removed from permanent water bodies, they are often prevented from expanding
their ranges and, theoretically may be susceptible to the effects of global warming."
This species is also potentially threatened by competition from introduced crayfish species
(Orconectes rusticus, Procambarus clarkii, Cambarus robustus) (Guiasu 2007).
Because of its very limited distribution, this species is particularly vulnerable intrinsically to
decline and extirpation (Guiasu 2007).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 494

 References:
Guiasu, R.C. 2007. Conservation And Diversity Of The Crayfishes Of The Genus Fallicambarus
Hobbs, 1969 (Decapoda, Cambaridae), With An Emphasis On The Status Of Fallicamb arus
Fodiens (Cottle, 1863) In Canada. Crustaceana 80 (2): 207-223.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.
Hobbs, Horton H.III, Dept. Of Biology, Wittenberg University , Springfield, OH 45501.
Hobbs, Horton, H., Jr. and Joseph F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1970. A new crayfish of the genus
FALLICAMBARUS from Tennessee (Decapoda, Astacidae). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. Vol. 82: pp.
829-836.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
National Park Service. 2004. Corinth Civil War Boundary Adjustment Study, Environmental
Assessment Corinth Unit of the Shiloh National Military Park.. Available online at
www.nps.gov/shil/parkmgmt/upload/Corinth%20BAS-Final%20EA-Sections1-2.pdf,
http://www.nps.gov/shil/parkmgmt/upload/Corinth%20BAS-Final%20EA-Sections3-4.pdf. Last
accessed June 20, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 495

 Scientific Name:
Fallicambarus petilicarpus
Common Name:
Slenderwrist Burrowing Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
CR - Critically endangered

Range:
NatureServe (2008) states that the range of Fallicambarus petilicarpus is less than 100-250
square km (less than about 40 to 100 square miles). It is known only from the type locality in
Union County, Arkansas (Robison and Allen 1995).
Habitat:
This species forms complex burrows in seepage areas (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There is only one known site for this species, which is known from only 18 specimens collected
on two dates (NatureServe 2008). It is "always rare and never abundant locally."
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled. The State of Arkansas classifies it
as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It was a Federal C-2 Candidate Species before that
list was abolished. It is ranked as endangered by the AFS and as critically endangered by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
The Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (2008) reports that the habitat of this species is threatened by
habitat disturbance due to road construction, and toxins and contaminants from road construction.
The Plan recommends protecting known occurrences from construction activities and herbicide
applications.
NatureServe (2008) reports that habitat destruction and degradation are the main threats to all
Fallicambarus crayfishes, primarily habitat modification for agriculture and wetland draining and
destruction.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2010) reports that no occurrences are appropriately protected and managed.
Other factors:
NatureServe (2008) reports that Fallicambarus species are imperiled by pollution, "including air,
water and soil pollution as these species spend time burrowing and in temporary waters."
This crayfish may also be threatened by global climate change. NatureServe (2008) states:
"Because burrowing crayfish tend to prefer warmer climates and the milder and shorter winters
currently found in southeastern areas of the U.S. and because they live in semi-terrestrial habitats
sometimes far removed from permanent water todies, they are often prevented from expanding
their ranges and, theoretically may be susceptible to the effects of global warming."
Competition from introduced crayfish species (Orconectes rusticus, Procambarus clarkii,

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 496

 Cambarus robustus) is considered a threat to the species in this genus (Guiasu 2007).
References:
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. 2008. Aquatic and Terrestrial Crayfish Report. Available online
at www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/08crayfish.pdf, last accessed March 31, 2009.
Guiasu, R.C. 2007. Conservation And Diversity Of The Crayfishes Of The Genus Fallicambarus
Hobbs, 1969 (Decapoda, Cambaridae), With An Emphasis On The Status Of Fallicamb arus
Fodiens (Cottle, 1863) In Canada. Crustaceana 80 (2): 207-223.
Hobbs, H. H. Jr. and H. W. Robison, 1989. On the crayfish genus Fallicambarus (Decapoda:
Cambaridae) in Arkansas, with notes on the fodiens complex and descriptions of two new
species. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 102(3):651-697.
Robison, H.W. and R.T. Allen. 1995. Only in Arkansas: A Study of the Endemic Plants and
Animals of the State. University of Arkansas Press: Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 497

 Scientific Name:
Fallicambarus strawni
Common Name:
Saline Burrowing Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Saline Burrowing crayfish is known from small portions of the Red and Ouachita River
drainages in Howard, Pike, and Sevier counties, Arkansas.
Habitat:
Fallicambarus strawni inhabits seeps in elevated areas in pine woods, and digs complex but
shallow burrows in saturated sand-clay soils (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
According to NatureServe (2008) this species is a primary burrower.
Populations:
This species is known from 13 locations. Total population is estimated at 1000-2500 individuals
(NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown.
Status:
The State of Arkansas classifies this crayfish as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It is
ranked as critically imperiled by NatureServe (2008) and as vulnerable by the IUCN. The
American Fisheries Society classifies this species as threatened.
Habitat destruction:
According to the Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (2008), F. strawni is threatened by habitat
destruction due to road construction. The plan recommends protecting known occurrences from
construction activities.
NatureServe (2008) reports that habitat destruction and degradation are the main threats to all
Fallicambarus crayfishes, primarily habitat modification for agriculture and wetland draining and
destruction.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
Other factors:
According to the Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (2008), F. strawni is threatened by exposure to
toxics from efforts to control other species' populations.
NatureServe (2008) reports that Fallicambarus species are imperiled by pollution, "including air,
water and soil pollution as these species spend time burrowing and in temporary waters."
This crayfish may also be threatened by global climate change. NatureServe (2008) states:

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 498

 "Because burrowing crayfish tend to prefer warmer climates and the milder and shorter winters
currently found in southeastern areas of the U.S. and because they live in semi-terrestrial habitats
sometimes far removed from permanent water todies, they are often prevented from expanding
their ranges and, theoretically may be susceptible to the effects of global warming."
References:
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. 2008. Aquatic and Terrestrial Crayfish Report. Available online
at www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/08crayfish.pdf, last accessed March 31, 2009.
Guiasu, R.C. 2007. Conservation And Diversity Of The Crayfishes Of The Genus Fallicambarus
Hobbs, 1969 (Decapoda, Cambaridae), With An Emphasis On The Status Of Fallicambarus
Fodiens (Cottle, 1863) In Canada. Crustaceana 80 (2): 207-223.
Hobbs, H. H. 1973. New species and relationships of the members of the genus Fallicambarus.
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 86(40):461-482.
Hobbs, H. H. Jr. and H. W. Robison, 1989. On the crayfish genus Fallicambarus (Decapoda:
Cambaridae) in Arkansas, with notes on the fodiens complex and descriptions of two new
species. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 102(3):651-697.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Robison, H.W. and R.T. Allen. 1995. Only in Arkansas: A Study of the Endemic Plants and
Animals of the State. University of Arkansas Press: Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 499

 Scientific Name:
Farancia erytrogramma seminola
Common Name:
South Florida Rainbow Snake
G Rank:
T1
Range:
The South Florida Rainbow Snake is known only from a single population in Fish Eating Creek,
flowing into the west side of Lake Okeechobee, in the southern peninsula of Florida (NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
This is an aquatic snake that has only been found in a freshwater stream with substantial aquatic
vegetation. Fisheating Creek , its only known location, is a sluggish, small to moderate sized
stream flowing through a cypress stand. During drought Fisheating Creek is reduced to a series of
disconnected lakes (Moler 1992). Though the South Florida Rainbow Snake has has only been
found in creeks, it could possibly inhabit areas similar to other rainbow snakes (Florida Museum
of Natural History 2000).
Populations:
There is only one known population of the South Florida Rainbow Snake, and only three
invididuals have ever been detected, one from 1949, and two from 1952 (NatureServe 2008). The
Florida Museum of Natural History reports that several unsuccessful searches have been
conducted for this snake since the 1950s (Florida Museum of Natural History 2000).
Population Trends:
No population trend data are available for this subspecies, as it is known only from three
individuals, the last of which was detected in 1952 (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The South Florida Rainbow Snake is critically imperiled (T1S1) (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
The South Florida Rainbow Snake is known only from a single creek, making it extremely
vulnerable to habitat degradation. The creek where this species occurs is vulnerable to degradation
from channelization or pollution, especially agricultural runoff (NatureServe 2008). During
periods of drought, Fisheating Creek is reduced to a series of disconnected lakes (Moler 1992),
making drought a threat for this aquatic snake.
Overutilization:
Because of the South Florida Rainbow Snake's extreme rarity, any level of collection poses a
threat to its survival. Only three individuals of this subspecies have ever been detected
(NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the South Florida Rainbow Snake, and the
single known population is not appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 500

 References:
Florida Museum of Natural History. 2000. South Florida Rainbow Snake.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/herpetology/fl-guide/Faranciaeseminola.htm
Moler, P. E., editor. 1992. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume III. Amphibians and
reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. xviii + 291 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 501

 Scientific Name:
Fimbristylis perpusilla
Common Name:
Harper's Fimbristylis
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This small annual sedge species is endemic to the southern Coastal Plain from Delaware to
Georgia, occurring in Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
and Virginia (NatureServe 2008). The Tennessee population is entirely disjunct from the Coastal
Plain population and is found exclusively in the Cumberland Plateau (Wofford and Jones 1988).
Natural heritage records indicate that this species is currently known in Kent and New Castle
Counties in Delaware, Baker, Seminole, and Sumter Counties in Georgia, in Caroline, Kent, and
Queen Anne's Counties in Maryland, in Brunswick and Columbus Counties in North Carolina, in
Horry County in South Carolina, and in Franklin and York Counties in Tennessee (NatureServe
2008). Within this range, occurrences are patchy and local abundance is highly variable across
years, largely because this species has very precise ecological preferences and can only become
established under certain environmental conditions.
Habitat:
Harper's fimbristylis occurs in areas that are exposed but not entirely desiccated during seasonal
dry periods. It inhabits the mud or silt margins of ponds and blackwater rivers, mudflats, river
shores, sloughs, sandbars, and depressions in low woodlands (NatureServe 2008). This species
germinates only in years or locations with adequate seasonal inundation and exposure cycles; the
conservation of natural hydrological patterns is therefore essential to its survival (NatureServe
2008, Kral 1971). It is thought that this species' seeds may lie dormant in substrate until suitable
hydrological conditions develop (Kral 1971, NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Very little is known about this plant's ecology beyond its specific habitat and hydrological
requirements (NatureServe 2008); means of dispersal is not fully understood (Wofford and Jones
1988).
Populations:
There are 55 known extant occurrences for this plant, though only half of these have been
confirmed in the past 24 years; the temporally sporadic abundance of this species makes
censusing difficult. NatureServe (2008) reports that only a few occurrences consist of
substantial population sizes (more than 1,000 individuals) have been recently documented. It is
estimated that the abundance of this species has declined more than 70 percent in comparison to
its historical abundance (NatureServe 2008). Several populations have disappeared in recent
years, and numerous known sites have been destroyed.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Harper's fimbristylis has experienced major declines in
recent decades (up to 90 percent) and that populations continue to decline rapidly.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Harper's fimbristylis is critically imperiled in Delaware,
Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, and imperiled in Maryland and South Carolina.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 502

 It is state-listed as endangered in Georgia, Maryland, Tennessee, and Virginia, and threatened in
North Carolina. Most populations are isolated and/or in decline.
Habitat destruction:
Anthropogenic alteration of local hydrology by any means is highly detrimental to this species as
it is so particular in its moisture preferences. Logging, forest clearing, and drainage for
agriculture are among the top recognized contributors to the decline of the Harper's fimbristylis,
and residential and agricultural development play an increasingly significant role, both by causing
habitat loss and increasing water demand (NatureServe 2008). Alterations to patterns of natural
succession are also of concern because changes in vegetation structure may exclude this shadeintolerant plant. Trampling by livestock, humans, and off-road vehicles is also a localized threat in
some areas (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is listed as endangered in Georgia, Maryland, Tennessee, and Virginia, and threatened in
North Carolina, these designations afford the Harper's fimbristylis no significant regulatory
protection. Therefore, no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species from
the threats it faces.
References:
Kral, R. 1971. A treatment of Abildgaardia, Bulbostylis, and Fimbristylis (Cyperaceae) for North
America. Sida 4:57-227.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
October 5, 2009).
Wofford, B.E., and R.L. Jones. 1988. Fimbristylis perpusilla Harper (Cyperaceae) from the
Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee. Castanea 52: 299-302.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 503

 Scientific Name:
Fissidens appalachensis
Common Name:
Appalachian Fissidens Moss
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This species is limited to a few counties in North Carolina and Tennessee: records indicate it is or
was present in Caldwell, Macon, MacDowell, Munroe and Watauga Counties, North Carolina, and
Carter County, Tennessee, though more recent confirmation of this range is unavailable (Crum
and Anderson 1981, USFS 2003, NC NHP 2004).
Habitat:
This moss is found submerged in rock crevices in shallow, fast-running waters, and is
characterized as a riparian-dependent species (Crum and Anderson 1981). It is often found at high
elevations in montane streams (USFS 2009).
Ecology:
This species’ dark green or black foliage forms fan-shaped clumps within crevice habitat, and
individuals are typically dioecious though synoecious populations have been found (Crum and
Anderson 1981).
Populations:
It is not known how many populations of this species occur.
Population Trends:
Total global population size is not known, nor are population trends reported. Based on the
various threats to its habitat, though, populations are likely in decline (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
It is considered a sensitive species in many National Forests. NatureServe (2008) ranks the
Appalachian fissidens moss as critically imperiled in Tennessee, and imperiled in North Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
This species is threatened by changes in regional hydrological patterns as a result of dams,
diversions, or other anthropogenic activities, and siltation or pollution by industry or upstream
residential or commercial development.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Appalachian fissidens moss: though
many remaining populations occur on National Forest lands, and the species is listed as sensitive
within these jurisdictions, this designation offers no substantial regulatory protections.
Other factors:
This species is imperiled by its small range, which makes it highly vulnerable to any further habitat
loss or other local threats (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 504

 References:
Crum, H.A., and L.E. Anderson. 1981. Mosses of eastern North America. 2 Volumes. Columbia
Univ. Press, New York. 1328 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
November 9, 2009)
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2004. List of rare plant species of North
Carolina. Accessed online November 30, 2009 <<
http://www.ncnhp.org/Images/Other%20Publications/2004%20Rare%20Plant%20List.pdf
>>
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.
USFS Southern Region. 2003. Biological evaluation for management activities in Sylco Ridge
II, compartments 323, 324, 325: Cherokee National Forest, Ocoee Ranger District. Accessed
online November 30, 2009 <<
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/cherokee/planning/environmental%20assessments/SylcoRidge/Appendix
%20C_be.pdf>>
USFS Southern Region. 2009. Biological evaluation for the transportation system and related
recreation management actions for the Upper Tellico off-highway vehicle system: Nantahala
National Forest, Tusquitee Ranger District, Cherokee, NC. Accessed online November 30,
2009 << http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/tusquitee/tellico/tellico_be.pdf>>

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 505

 Scientific Name:
Fissidens hallii
Common Name:
Hall's Pocket Moss
G Rank:
G2
Range:
An extremely rare species throughout its range, F. hallii is known from Florida, Louisiana, North
Carolina, and Texas (Crum and Anderson 1981).
Habitat:
This moss is found on decaying wood or bark, most often in cypress swamps, and also grows on
clay soil in swamp habitat (Crum and Anderson 1981).
Ecology:
This moss is small and dioecious.
Populations:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (2008) describes this species as significantly rare
throughout its range with fewer than 100 populations total, but more precise estimates of the
number of occurrences or total population size are unavailable.
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this species.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is critically imperiled in North Carolina, but
rankings are not available for the rest of the range of this extremely rare moss.
Habitat destruction:
This moss' habitat is threatened by anthropogenic alteration of regional hydrology, outright
conversion to agriculture, residential, or silvicultural uses, and pollution or siltation generated by
these land uses in adjacent areas.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
F. hallii is listed as a Regional Forester's Sensitive Species in North Carolina, but this designation
offers it no substantial regulatory protection; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately
protect this species.
Other factors:
This species is particularly vulnerable to extirpation due to its rarity and limited distribution
(Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002).
References:
Anderson, L.E., H.A. Crum, and W.R. Buck. 1990. List of the mosses of North America north of
Mexico. The Bryologist 93(4):448-499.
Crum, H.A., and L.E. Anderson. 1981. Mosses of eastern North America. 2 Volumes. Columbia
Univ. Press, New York. 1328 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 506

 NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 3, 2009.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2008 Rare Plants List. Accessed online December
17, 2009.
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 507

 Scientific Name:
Floridobia mica
Common Name:
Ichetucknee Siltsnail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The known range of this snail is approximately 10 square yards at Ichetucknee Springs State Park
in Florida (Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection 2000). It occurs only at Coffee Spring
along the west bank of the Ichetucknee River (Thompson 1968, 1999).
Habitat:
This snail occurs on submerged mosses and cypress rootlets in sand and gravel-bottomed karst
spring pools (Thompson 1968). Its spring issues from two sources beneath a sandstone
outcropping before forming a large circular pool that is 40 feet wide and 1-2 feet deep with sandgravel-silt substrate. The pool is open and continuous with the Ichetucknee River, and has large
patches of submerged bryophytes covering sticks and rocks (Thompson 1968).
Populations:
There is only one population of this snail and total population size is unknown (NatureServe
2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this species.
Status:
The Ichetucknee Siltsnail is critically imperiled (G1S1, NatureServe 2008). It is categorized as
vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
This snail's extremely limited habitat occurs in a state park which is heavily used for recreation,
particularly "tubing," diving, and canoeing (NatureServe 2008). The spring where this snail occurs
is continuous with the river, and the spring may be subject to unintentional degradation through
recreational activities. The state park management plan states that extinction of the species could
occur if the the spring is disturbed, and staff erected a fence across the mouth of the spring
(Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection 2000). The species is vulnerable to habitat loss from
water quality degradation from recreational activities. Florida's spring karst habitats are also
threatened by a variety of factors including groundwater contamination, aquifer withdrawals, and
saltwater intrusion (Walsh 2001).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no regulatory mechanisms in place to protect this snail.
Other factors:
This species is threatened by water pollution from recreation and from activities outside the park
where it occurs.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 508

 References:
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection. 2000. Ichetucknee Springs State Park Approved Unit
Management Plan. Division of Recreation and Parks.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/IchetuckneeSpringsStatePark.pdf Last
accessed Jan. 11, 2010.
Thompson, F.G. 1968. The Aquatic Snails of the family Hydrobiidae of peninsular Florida.
University of Florida Press: Gainesville, Florida. 268 pp.
Thompson, F.G. 1999. An identification manual for the freshwater snails of Florida. Walkerana
10(23): 1-96.
Thompson, F.G. and R. Hershler. 2002. Two genera of North American freshwater snails:
Marstonia Baker, 1926, resurrected to generic status, and Floridobia, new genus (Prosobranchia:
Hydrobiidae: Nymphophilinae). The Veliger, 45(3): 269-271.
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater Macrofauna of Florida Karst Habitats. In Eve L. Kuniansky, editor,
2001, U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group
Proceedings, Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011, p. 78-88

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 509

 Scientific Name:
Floridobia monroensis
Common Name:
Enterprise Siltsnail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
This snail is restricted to a single site in Volusia County, Florida, with a total extant range of less
than 0.4 square km (Franz 1982, Thompson 1968, 1999; Watson 2000). Despite extensive
surveys, this snail is known only from its type locality.
Habitat:
This snail occurs on leaf detritus on the edge and bottom of a seepage run (Franz 1982). The
seepage is a few cm deep with mud and silt substrate, slow current, and leaf litter, woody debris,
and orange flocculent matter (Watson 2000).
Populations:
This snail is only known from one occurrence, and total population size is unknown (NatureServe
2008).
Population Trends:
The population trend for this snail is thought to be stable to relatively stable, though available
habitat has been reduced by alterations at the spring where it occurs (Watson 2000, NatureServe
2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Enterprise Siltsnail as critically imperiled. It is categorized as
vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
With a total extant range of less than one square kilometer, the Enterprise Siltsnail is exceedingly
vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation. This species' limited habitat has already been drastically
reduced by alteration of the spring where it occurs (NatureServe 2008). Benson's Mineral spring
was once a broad stream that formerly flowed into Lake Monroe (Johnson 1973). The spring is
now capped, and most of its waters have been divested for human use. NatureServe (2008) reports
that the snail "is still holding on in seeps associated with the original spring." This species is
threatened because the remaining seepage is highly vulnerable to water table decline resulting
from drought or human consumption. Walsh (2001) reports that hydroelectric development at the
spring is a severe threat that could extirpate this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the Enterprise Siltsnail. NatureServe
(2008) reports that the lone occurrence of this species is not appropriately protected and managed.
References:
Franz, R. (ed.) 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida: Volume Six: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida: Gainesville, Florida. 131 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1973. Distribution of Hydrobiidae, a family of fresh and brackish water gastropods,
in peninsular Florida. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 3(46): 281-303.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 510

 Thompson, F.G. 1968. The Aquatic Snails of the family Hydrobiidae of peninsular Florida.
University of Florida Press: Gainesville, Florida. 268 pp.
Thompson, F.G. 1999. An identification manual for the freshwater snails of Florida. Walkerana
10(23): 1-96.
Thompson, F.G. and R. Hershler. 2002. Two genera of North American freshwater snails:
Marstonia Baker, 1926, resurrected to generic status, and Floridobia, new genus (Prosobranchia:
Hydrobiidae: Nymphophilinae). The Veliger, 45(3): 269-271.
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.
Watson, C.N., Jr. 2000. Results of a survey for selected species of Hydrobiidae (Gastropoda) in
Georgia and Florida. Pages 233-244 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J.
Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings.
Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 511

 Scientific Name:
Floridobia parva
Common Name:
Pygmy Siltsnail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Pygmy Siltsnail is endemic to the upper part of Blue Springs in Volusia County, Florida, with
a total range of far less than 100 square km (Johnson 1973, Thompson 1968, 1999, NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
This snail occurs on vegetation, gravel, and debris in a freshwater karst spring run. The springs
form a 50-ft wide circular pool that issues from a large central boil and several smaller boils. The
spring run varies in depth from 5-15 ft and is approximately 30 yards wide. The water is clear and
supports thick aquatic vegetation. The substrate is silty-sand and gravel over soft limestone. The
spring run is approximately one-quarter mile long before entering the St. John's River (Thompson
1968).
Populations:
There is one population of this snail and population size is unknown.
Population Trends:
Bleasdale et al. (2009) and Jnbaptiste et al. (2009) report that this snail is declining and is now
present in lower densities than in 1992-1993.
Status:
The Pygmy Siltsnail is critically imperiled (G1S1) (NatureServe 2008). It is categorized as
vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
The lone population of this snail is in a recreational area, making recreational impacts a threat to
its survival. There is a developed swimming area in part of the spring (Moss et al. 2009). The park
management plan states that the spring has suffered from erosion due to people climbing on the
spring banks (Florida Division of Recreation and Parks 1999). The Siltsnail is also threatened by
logging, as the park management plan allows for timbering operations within park boundaries
(Florida Division of Recreation and Parks 1999). Invasive tilapia (Tilapia aurea) are causing
habitat degradation at Blue Spring. Tilapia make deep spawning beds in the sand bottom which can
undermine bank stability (Florida Division of Recreation and Parks 1999).
Deteriorating water quality also threatens this species. The Florida Wildlife Conservation
Commission (2009) reports that spring habitats in the state are very highly threatened by nutrient
loading from agricultural and urban runoff, and by invasive plants and animals. Bleasdale et al.
(2009) report that "there is evidence suggesting chemical changes to the waters of Blue Spring
and the St. John's River from direct spilling or dumping, runoff and flow rate changes from land
use in the recharge basin, and/or seepage of chemicals into the groundwater source for Blue
Spring." They also report that this species' habitat is threatened by the introduction of exotic
species such as the Vermiculated Sailfin Catfish (Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus), which uses the
long algal filaments that are a habitat component for the snail as a food source. Jnbaptiste et al.
(2009) also report recent declines in water quality and outflow at the spring.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 512

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no regulatory mechanisms that currently protect this species.
References:
Bleasdale, C.J., M.A. Reiter, and A.J. Brooks-Walter. 2009. Potential drivers impacting the
endemic snail populations of Blue Spring, Volusia County FL. Abstracts of the 73rd Annual
Meeting of the Florida Academy of Sciences, in conjunction with the Tampa Bay Section of the
American Chemical Society. Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida
20-21 March 2009.
Florida Division of Recreation and Parks. 1999. Blue Spring State Park and Hontoon Island State
Park Unit Management Plan. Approved Plan. State of Florida Dept. of Environmental
Protection. Available at:
http://edocs.dlis.state.fl.us/fldocs/dep/parks/unitmanplan/1999/BlueSpringStatePark.pdf Last
accessed Jan. 6, 2010.
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Springs.
http://www.fwc.state.fl.us/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Spring.pdf.
Jnbaptiste, C.K., M.A. Reiter, and A. Brooks-Walter. 2009. A survey of the endemic snail
populations of Blue Spring in response to habitat degradation. 2009. Potential drivers impacting
the endemic snail populations of Blue Spring, Volusia County FL. Abstracts of the 73rd Annual
Meeting of the Florida Academy of Sciences, in conjunction with the Tampa Bay Section of the
American Chemical Society. Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida 20-21 March 2009.
Johnson, R.I. 1973. Distribution of Hydrobiidae, a family of fresh and brackish water gastropods,
in peninsular Florida. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 3(46): 281-303.
Moss, R.J., M.A. Reiter, and A.J. Brooks-Walter. 2009. A survey of the endemic snail
populations of Blue Spring in response to habitat degradation. 2009. Potential drivers impacting
the endemic snail populations of Blue Spring, Volusia County FL. Abstracts of the 73rd Annual
Meeting of the Florida Academy of Sciences, in conjunction with the Tampa Bay Section of the
American Chemical Society. Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida 20-21 March 2009.
Thompson, F.G. 1968. The aquatic snails of the family Hydrobiidae of peninsular Florida.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL.
Thompson, F.G. 1999. An identification manual for the freshwater snails of Florida. Walkerana
10(23): 1-96.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 513

 Scientific Name:
Floridobia ponderosa
Common Name:
Ponderous Siltsnail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of the Ponderous Siltsnail is approximately 200 acres in Seminole County, Florida
(Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection 2003). It is known only from Sanlando Springs in the
Middle St. John's watershed (Burgess and Franz 1978, Johnson 1973, Thompson 1968, 1999).
Habitat:
The spring where this snail occurs issues from a large limestone cavern 15 feet below the water
surface, and forms a pool 50 feet across at the base of low rolling hills in a semi-wooded area
along the east bank of the Little Wekiva River. The spring has been been dammed below the pool
and modified into a recreation area. Two runs flow from opposite ends of the pool and enter the
river about 200 yards apart. Snails are abundant in the spring and in the Little Wekiva River to
about 500 yards below the spring runs, but do not occur beyond this point. Snails are found on
vegetation and on sand and gravel substrates (Thompson 1968).
Populations:
There is only one population of this species and population size is unknown.
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for the lone population of this snail.
Status:
The Ponderous Siltsnail is critically imperiled (G1S1). It is classified as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
This species has only 200 total habitat acres, none of which are protected, making it very
vulnerable to habitat degradation (FDEP 2003). The single spring where this snail occurs has been
modified by damming to create a swimming pool, making recreational and water quality impacts a
threat to its survival. The spring is surrounded by development, which further threatens water
quality (NatureServe 2008). The Little Wekiva watershed has undergone "intense development"
and rapid and extensive urbanization which has caused water quality problems and loss of native
species (FDEP 2003). Spring habitats in Florida are also threatened by groundwater
contamination, aquifer withdrawals, and saltwater intrusion (Walsh 2001).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no regulatory mechanisms that currently protect this species which occurs in a single
population on private land.
Other factors:
This snail is threatened by pollution from recreation and development.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 514

 References:
Burgess, G.H. and R. Franz. 1978. Zoogeography of the aquatic fauna of the St. Johns River
system with comments on adjacent peninsular faunas. The American Midland Naturalist, 100(1):
160-170.
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection. 2003. Division of Water Resource Management.
Basin Status Report, Central District, Group 2 Basin, Middle St. Johns. Available at:
http://tlhdwf2.dep.state.fl.us/basin411/sj_middle/status/MS-Johns.pdf Last accessed Jan. 7,
2010.
Johnson, R.I. 1973. Distribution of Hydrobiidae, a family of fresh and brackish water gastropods,
in peninsular Florida. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 3(46): 281-303.
Thompson, F.G. 1968. The aquatic snails of the family Hydrobiidae of peninsular Florida.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL.
Thompson, F.G. 1999. An identification manual for the freshwater snails of Florida. Walkerana
10(23): 1-96.
Thompson, F.G. and R. Hershler. 2002. Two genera of North American freshwater snails:
Marstonia Baker, 1926, resurrected to generic status, and Floridobia, new genus (Prosobranchia:
Hydrobiidae: Nymphophilinae). The Veliger, 45(3): 269-271.
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater Macrofauna of Florida Karst Habitats. In Eve L. Kuniansky, editor,
2001, U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group
Proceedings, Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011, p. 78-88

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 515

 Scientific Name:
Floridobia wekiwae
Common Name:
Wekiwa Siltsnail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of the Wekiwa Siltsnail iis less than 100 square km in the St. John's River System in
Orange County, Florida, where it is restricted to Wekiwa Springs and spring run (Burgess and
Franz 1978; Johnson 1973, Thompson 1999). The area of occupancy of this species is less than
0.4 square km (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This snail occurs in a freshwater karst spring that issues from five submerged horizontal caverns
before forming a pool about 120 feet across. The snails are found in the spring pool and run for a
short distance below the pool. The pool has fine sand substrate and the spring run has thick mats
of submerged vegetation. The spring run is approximately 75 feet wide and 3 feet deep (Thompson
1968).
Populations:
There is one population of this snail and population size is unknown (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this species (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This snail is critically imperiled (G1S1). It is categorized as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
The Wekiwa Siltsnail is exceptionally vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation because the lone
population of this species occurs in a heavily used state park recreation area. Recreational
impacts could cause water pollution, increased siltation, decreased aquatic vegetation, and direct
crushing and displacement of snails (NatureServe 2008, Reiter 1992). Decreasing water quality
or quantity threaten this species, as do external sources of pollution and groundwater decline
resulting from urbanization (Walsh 2001).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechansims to protect this species.
References:
Burgess, G.H. and R. Franz. 1978. Zoogeography of the aquatic fauna of the St. Johns River
system with comments on adjacent peninsular faunas. The American Midland Naturalist, 100(1):
160-170.
Johnson, R.I. 1973. Distribution of Hydrobiidae, a family of fresh and brackish water gastropods,
in peninsular Florida. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 3(46): 281-303.
Thompson, Dr. Fred G., Curator of Malacology, Florida Museum of Natural History, University
of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. ALAC. 352/392-1721. SUNCOM: 622-1721.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 516

 Thompson, F.G. 1968. The Aquatic Snails of the family Hydrobiidae of peninsular Florida.
University of Florida Press: Gainesville, Florida. 268 pp.
Thompson, F.G. 1999. An identification manual for the freshwater snails of Florida. Walkerana
10(23): 1-96.
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater Macrofauna of Florida Karst Habitats. In Eve L. Kuniansky, editor,
2001, U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group
Proceedings, Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011, p. 78-88

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 517

 Scientific Name:
Forestiera godfreyi
Common Name:
Godfrey's Privet
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Godfrey's privet is known from a limited range. This species is present in nine counties in
northern Florida, southeastern Georgia, and southeastern South Carolina (Anderson 1985,
Weakley 1996, Kartesz 1998). Most occurrences are found in Florida. Population size and
density are variable across its range. Natural heritage records show this species is present in
Alachua, Dixie, Duval, Gadsden, Jackson, Jefferson, Liberty, and Marion Counties, Florida,
Camden County, Georgia, and in Beaufort, Charleston, and Colleton Counties, South Carolina
(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The privet is found on forested slopes along lake or river bluffs, in rocky woodlands and hardwood
hammocks, and often occurs on limestone outcroppings (Anderson 1985, FNAI 2000).
Ecology:
The privet is a deciduous shrub which flowers mid-January to mid-February and fruits through
May (FNA 2000).
Populations:
This species is rare across its range (Anderson 1985): one occurrence is known in South
Carolina, one in Georgia, and approximately 15 in Florida (Weakley, 1996, Chafin 1999). Several
historical occurrences have been extirpated in recent decades (NatureServe 2008). Populations
are dense at some sites and sparse at others. Total population size is not known, and estimation is
difficult because the species forms dense thickets.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Godfrey's privet has experienced substantial declines (up to
75 percent in recent decades), and that populations continue to decline precipitously.
Status:
This species is known from a limited range across which it is already rare and in continuing
decline. NatureServe (2008) ranks F. godfreyi as critically imperiled in Georgia and South
Carolina, and imperiled in Florida.
Habitat destruction:
The habitat of Godfrey's privet is threatened by logging, establishment of tree plantations, and
conversion to residential development (NatureServe 2008, FNAI 2000).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Several occurrences of this plant are found on protected parks or reserves; at some of these sites
competition with invasive exotics still imperils the species (Chafin 1999, NatureServe 2008).
Though it is listed as endangered in Florida, this designation affords no substantial protection, and
no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Godfrey's privet or its habitat.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 518

 Other factors:
Competition with invasive exotic species, particularly Chinese privet (Ligustrem sinsense) and
heavenly bamboo (Nandina domestica), threatens this species in certain parts of its range (FNAI
2000).
References:
Anderson, L. C. 1985. Forestiera Godfreyi (Oleaceae): A new species from Florida and South
Carolina. SIDA. 11(1):1- 5.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2000. Godfrey's privet, Forestiera godfreyi. Accessed
online December 15, 2009 <<http://www.google.com/search?q=godfrey%27s+privet&ie=utf8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a>>.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 3, 2009.
Nelson, G. 1996. The shrubs and woody vines of Florida, A reference and field guide.. Pineapple
Press, Inc. Sarasota, FL XX+391 pp.
Weakley, A.S. 1996. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia: working draft of 23 May 1996. The
Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Southern Conservation Science Dept., Chapel
Hill, North Carolina. Unpaginated.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 519

 Scientific Name:
Fundulus julisia
Common Name:
Barrens Topminnow
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Historically, the barrens topminnow was found in the headwaters of the Duck and Elk Rivers and
the Caney Fork River system of the Cumberland drainage (Etnier and Starnes 1993). It is
apparently extirpated from the Duck River where it was last collected in 1964 (Ibid.)
Habitat:
The barrens topminnow occupies heavily vegetated pools in springs and slow moving streams and
appears to prefer areas with filamentous algae and watercress (Etnier and Starnes 1993).
Populations:
The barrens topminnow is a critcally endangered species that is currently limited to four localities
with perhaps a few hundred fish (Rakes 1996, Winford 2002, Goldsworthy and Bettoli 2005).
The topminnow has been stocked into additional sites, but in most cases reproduction has not
occccurred and populations have not been established likely because of introduced mosquitofish
(Goldsworthy and Bettoli 2005).
Population Trends:
The barrens topminnow has experienced rapid and substantial population declines (Rakes 1996,
Goldsworthy and Bettoli 2005, NatureServe 2008). Surveys in 1983 identified the species at 14
sites with 4500-5000 adults (Rakes 1996, Goldsworthy and Bettoli 2005). By 1994, there were
only seven sites with a few hundred adults and by 2004, there were only four sites, all of which are
of questionable viability (Ibid.)
Status:
The barrens topminnow is listed as critically imperiled by NatureServe (2008), as endangered and
declining by AFS (2008) and as endangered by the state of Tennessee. It is threatened by habitat
degradation related to livestock grazing and agriculture, drought and introduced mosquitofish
(Goldsworthy and Bettoli 2005, NatureServe 2008). Mosquitofish are present at two of the
remaining four sites with wild populations and a third has recently been threatened by drought
(Goldsworthy and Bettoli 2005). Etnier and Starnes (1993) concluded that the "species has to be
considered in jeopardy." At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for
Biological Diversity, there was agreement that the barrens topminnow should be listed as
theatened (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
Habitat for the barrens topminnow faces a multitude of threats, including impoundment, stream
diversions and irrigation withdrawals associated with agricultural, pollution silt, petroleum
products, and pesticides, and degradation by livestock, draining, bulldozing and dredging (Rakes
1996, Goldsworthy and Bettoli 2005, NatureServe 2008). Of the four remaining wild
populations, for example, Goldsworthy and Bettoli (2005) report that "the stability of these
populations was questionable" because "one site occurred behind a new housing subdivision and
the other occurred on an active cattle farm adjacent to a major highway."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 520

 Disease or predation:
This fish is threatened by predation from introduced mosquitofish (Goldsworthy and Bettoli 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The barrens topminnow was first proposed for listing in 1977 along with four other species of fish
(Federal Register 42: 65209, December 30, 1977). This proposal was withdrawn along with
proposals for roughly 2,000 species in 1979 after FWS failed to finalize these proposals prior to a
one year deadline established by Congress in a 1978 amendment that added new requirements for
public comment and designation of critical habitat (Federal Register 44, March 6, 1979). In the
thrity-one years that have followed this failure, the barrens topminnow has continued to decline
and threats have increased.
A number of voluntary efforts have been established in an attempt to recover the topminnow. In
particular, a "Barrens Topminnow Working Group" was established in 2001, including the FWS,
Nature Conservancy, two major universities, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and others.
The working group has been engaged in individual habitat restoration projects, such as constructing
fencing to exclude livestock, and artificial propagation and stocking into springs within the
species historic range. Although admirable, these efforts have not successfully recovered the
barrens topminnow. To date, efforts to establish new populations through artificial propogation
have not been succesful with Goldsworthy and Bettoli (2005) concluding:
"Barrens topminnow Fundulus julisia populations have declined precipitously since the species was
described in 1982. Propagation and reintroductions have been the primary means of recovery
since 2001, but the reintroductions have been generally unsuccessful in creating self-sustaining
populations."
NatureServe (2008) report that "all known extant populations are on private property." In most
cases, these populations are receiving little protection and as noted in the section on destruction
of habitat, two of the remaining four wild populations are actively threatened by livestock grazing
and urban sprawl (Goldsworthy and Bettoli 2005). The type locality of the species, which is a
spring tributary to West Fork Hickory Creek, is afforded some protection by a cooperative
agreement with the owner and the Nature Conservancy. Despite this protection, the population was
almost lost to drought in the early 1980s (Rakes 1996).
The species is listed as threatened by the state of Tennessee, but this designation affords the
species no regulatory protection.
Other factors:
The barrens topminnow is severely threatened by the introduction and spread of the mosquitofish
(Gambusia affinis). NatureServe (2008) reports that "mosquitofish populations are becoming
more widespread and abundant in the range of F. julisia and appear to be replacing F. juliasia."
Goldsworthy and Bettoli (2005) determined that mosquitofish were likely the biggest factor in
lack of recruitment for reintroduced populations. Mosquitofish are sympatric with at least two of
the four remaining wild populations.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 521

 Barrens topminnow is also threatened by climate change, which will increase temperatures and
reduce water availability and thereby increase drought (Karl et al. 2009). Drought is already
known to be threat for the species with the type locality having to be rescued from drying habitat in
the early 1980s.
Barrens topminnow is threatened by pollution from a variety of sources (Goldsworthy and Bettoli
2005).
References:
Cashner, R. C., J. S. Rogers, and J. M. Grady. 1992. Phylogenetic studies of the genus
FUNDULUS. Pages 421-437 in R. L. Mayden, editor. Systematics, historical ecology, and North
American freshwater fishes. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, California. xxvi + 969 pp.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.
Goldsworthy, C., and P.W. Bettoli. 2005. The Fate of Stocked Barrens Topminnows Fundulus
julisia (Fundulidae) and Status of Wild Populations. A Final Report submitted to Mr. Richard
Kirk, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee. Available at:
http://www.tntech.edu/fish/PDF/Topminnow%202.pdf
Huver, C. W. 1973. A bibliography of the genus FUNDULUS. G. K. Hall and Company, Boston.
v + 138 pp.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the
United States. Cambridge University Press.
Matthews, W. J., and D. C. Heins, editors. 1987. Community and evolutionary ecology of North
American stream fishes. Univ. Oklahoma Press, Norman. viii + 310 pp.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.
Ono, R.D., J.D. Williams, and A. Wagner. 1983. Vanishing Fishes of North America. Stone Wall
Press, Washington, DC. 257 pp
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Parenti, L. R. 1981. A phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of cyprinodontiform fishes
(Teleostei, Atherinomorpha). Bulletin of the American Museum Natural History 168:335-557.
Rakes, P. L. "1996" [probably 1997]. Status survey and review with recommendations for

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 522

 management of the barrens topminnow for Arnold Engineering Development Center, Coffee and
Franklin counties, including surrounding areas. Final Report, Contract No. 077040196,
Tennessee Field Office, The Nature Conservancy, Nashville, Tennessee. 39 pp. [report is dated
18 January 1996 but dates of field surveys are reported as April-October 1996]
Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott.
1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. American
Fisheries Society, Special Publishing 20. 183 pp.
Rogers, J. S., and R. C. Cashner. 1987. Genetic variation, divergence, and relationships in the
subgenus Xenisma of the genus Fundulus. Pages 251-264 in W. J. Matthews, and D. C. Heins,
editors. Community and evolutionary ecology of North American stream fishes. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.
Starnes, W. C. 1995. Taxonomic validation for fish species on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Category 2 species list. 28 pp.
Wiley, E. O. 1986. A study of the evolutionary relationships of FUNDULUS topminnows
(Teleostei: Fundulidae). American Zoologist 26:121-130.
Williams, J. D., and D. A. Etnier. 1982. Description of a new species, FUNDULUS JULISIA,
with a redescription of FUNDULUS ALBOLINEATUS and a diagnosis of the subgenus.... Univ.
Kansas Museum Natural History Occas. Paper 102. 20 pp.
Winford, E. M. 2002. Private property, public interest. Endangered Species Bulletin 27(3):2627.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 523

 Scientific Name:
Pleuronaia barnesiana
Common Name:
Tennessee Pigtoe
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
This mussel, formerly known as Fusconaia barnesiana, occurs in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. This mussel is restricted to the Cumberlandian regions
of the Tennessee River drainage in Tennessee, Alabama, and Virginia (Simpson 1914, Parmalee
and Bogan 1998). There are also recent records for two counties in North Carolina (LeGrand et
al. 2006). Many populations persist as small, isolated remnants with diminished numbers in
fragmented reaches of the Clinch, Powell, Holston, Nolichucky, Little Pigeon, Paint Rock, Elk,
and Duck river systems (NatureServe 2008). This mussel is found in many small to medium-sized
rivers in East and Middle Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). This mussel also occurs in the
Tennessee River drainage in Mississippi (Jones et al. 2005). This mussel may no longer be extant
in Georgia, but might occur in the state in the Tennessee River basin (J. Wisniewski, GA NHP,
pers. comm., January 2007 cited in NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This mussel inhabits riffle and shoal areas with moderate to swift current, and is rarely
encountered in pools, slackwater areas, or depths exceeding one meter (Ahlstedt 1984). Preferred
substrates range from cracks in bedrock to mixtures of coarse sand, gravel, cobble, and bouldersized particles. Mirarchi et al. (2004) provided the following description of this species' habitat:
"Varies from small streams to medium-sized rivers. However, historically occurred in Tennessee
River at Muscle Shoals, but was extirpated when river was impounded (Garner and McGregor
2001). Appears to prefer shallow water with moderate current and a substratum of coarse sand,
silt, and gravel (Parmalee and Bogan 1998)."
Ecology:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) state this species is presumably a short-term brooder that is gravid from
spring through mid-summer.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) roughly estimates that there are from 6-80 populations of Tennessee Pigtoe.
This mussel’s historical distribution has been severely fragmented, and it is now distributed
sporadically throughout its former range at very low population densities. In North Carolina this
mussel is only known from Macon and Swain counties in the Hiwassee and Little Tennessee River
basins (Bogan 2002, LeGrand et al. 2006). In Alabama it is extant only in the Paint Rock River
system and in a few tributaries to the Tennessee River, including Limestone and Round Island
Creeks (Mirarchi et al. 2004). In Tennessee, it is extant in many small to medium-sized rivers in
the east and center of the state including the upper Clinch and Powell, Little Pigeon, Nolichucky,
Little, Elk, Duck, Buffalo, and Hiwassee (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). Johnson et al. (2005)
report this mussel from the Hiwassee River inside and adjacent to Cherokee National Forest in
Polk County, Tennessee. Jones et al. (2005) report this species from the Tennessee River
drainage in Mississippi. In Georgia, this species might still occur in the Tennessee basin, but
could be extirpated (J. Wisniewski, GA NHP, pers. comm., January 2007 cited in NatureServe
2008). In Virginia, this mussel occurs in the Powell, Clinch, North and South Fork Holston

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 524

 rivers, and in Copper Creek (Jones et al. 2001, Fraley and Ahlstedt 2000, VA NHP, pers. comm.
2007 cited in NatureServe 2008). Jones and Neves (2007) describe the distribution in the upper
North Fork Holston River in Smyth and Bland counties, Virginia as rkm 142.7 to 199.6.
Most extant populations exist at very low densities but the species persists in considerable
numbers in several tributary systems of the Tennessee (Little Pigeon and Hiwassee) (NatureServe
2008).
Population Trends:
The Tennessee Pigtoe is very rapidly to rapidly declining (decline of 30-70 percent) in the short
term and moderately declining (decline of 25 - 50 percent) in the long term. NatureServe (2008)
states: "Populations continue to be lost at a high rate. TVA data indicates a sharp drop in
occurrence in the Clinch River over the last 10 years. In Tennessee, it was known from the
Emory, Watauga, French Broad, Holston, Sequatchie, and Tennessee Rivers but only prior to 1960
(Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It is questionable as to whether this species still occurs in Georgia
but it may still be surviving in the Tennessee River basin somewhere (J. Wisniewski, GA NHP,
pers. comm., January 2007)." This species was extirpated from the mainstem of the Tennessee
River by impoundments, but there are extant populations in many of the small to medium-sized
rivers in east and middle Tennessee, though current populations are now reduced and localized
(Parmalee and Bogan, 1998, NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Tennessee Pigtoe as critically imperiled in Alabama, Mississippi,
and North Carolina, imperiled in Tennessee and Virginia, and not ranked in Georgia. It is
classified as Near Threatened by the IUCN. The range has been markedly reduced and the species
is declining. It is ranked as special concern/vulnerable by the American Fisheries Society
(Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Habitat alteration is the greatest threat to freshwater mussels in the southeastern U.S. (Neves et
al. 1997). The habitat of the Tennessee Pigtoe has been severely impacted by alteration and
inundation of river channels, siltation from agriculture and clear-cutting, and toxic run-off from
coal mines (NatureServe 2008). Mussels in the Clinch and Powell watershed are threatened by
coal mining and agricultural practices (U.S. EPA 2002). This species is also threatened by
mountaintop removal coal mining in particular (EPA 2005). Mountaintop removal can fill in
streams entirely and can cause significant downstream and groundwater pollution. Pollutants
associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota (Palmer et al.
2010). Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates
(Wood 2009). Virginia's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2006) cites siltation,
dredging, pollution, mining, water withdrawal, and impoundment as threats to aquatic species in
the Southern Cumberlands. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (2010) reports
that aquatic species in the Hiwassee River and Little Teneessee River basin, including the
Tennessee Pigtoe, are threatened by erosion, sedimentation, impoundment, and increasing
development. Mississippi's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2009) reports that
aquatic species in the Northeast Hills of the Tennessee River drainage, including this mussel, are
highly threatened by agriculture, forestry, poor water quality, and operation of dams. The Alabama
Dept. of Environmental Management (2003) reports that the Tennessee River basin has been
widely degraded by nonpoint source pollution from many sources, particularly agriculture, urban
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 525

 development, logging, and surface coal mining (ADEM 2003). There are more than 130 confined
animal feeding operations in the Tennessee River basin (ADEM 2003). Aquatic habitats in the
basin are also degraded by water-related recreational activities and nonpoint source pollution
from onsite residential sewage systems (ADEM 2003).
Disease or predation:
Neves and Odom (1989) cite muskrat predation as a threat to imperiled mussels in the North Fork
of the Holston in Virginia, noting specific predation on the Tennessee Pigtoe.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechansims that adequately protect the Tennessee Pigtoe, and
few occurrences of this mussel are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). It is
listed as Endangered by the State of North Carolina, and as a Species of Greatest Conservation
Need in Alabama and Mississippi, and is a species of Special Concern in Virginia, but these
designations do not provide the species with any substantial regulatory protection. It has no state
status in Georgia or Tennessee. This species occurs on The Nature Conservancy's Pendleton Island
Preserve, but the degree of habitat protection for this species at this site is "limited by inadequate
protection from potential catastrophic threats within the watershed from upstream" (NatureServe
2008). It is unknown whether other populations occur within protected areas. ohnson et al. (2005)
reported this mussel from the Hiwassee River inside and adjacent to Cherokee National Forest,
Polk Co., Tennessee, but this confers little habitat protection. NatureServe (2008) provides the
following management recommendations for this species: "All populations should receive
protection through acquisition, easement, registry, and working with local, state, and federal
government agencies on issues relating to development, water quality, river designation, etc.
Management plans to control siltation and acid coal mine run-off are essential."
Other factors:
Any factor which degrades water qualilty is a threat to the Tennessee Pigtoe. NatureServe (2008)
states that chemical and organic pollution have severely impacted this species, stating that
management is necessary to protect water quality and to control siltation and acid coal mine runoff. Population isolation and low abundance of some populations heighten the susceptibility of this
species to extirpation. The North Fork of the Holston River has been severely impacted by
mercury releases (Stansberry and Clench 1975, Neves 1991 in Flebbe et al. 1996). Invasive
species also threaten this mussel and its host fish. Several invasive species are known to be present
in this mussel's habitat including blueback herring, Asian clam, striped bass, snail bullhead,
rainbow trout, and brown trout (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 2010).
References:
Ahlstedt, S.A. 1984. Twentieth century changes in the freshwater mussel fauna of the Clinch
River (Tennessee and Virginia). M.S. Thesis, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
102 pp.
Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management. 2003. Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Management Plan. Clean Water Partnership. Available at:
http://www.adem.state.al.us/Education%20Div/Nonpoint%20Program/Basins/TennesseeRiverBa
sinManagementPlan.pdf Accessed Feb. 5, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 526

 Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.
Flebbe, P.A., J. Harrison, G. Kappesser, D. Melgaard, J. Riley, and L.W. Swift Jr. 1996. Status of
Aquatic Resources: part 1 of 2, pp. 15-63. In Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere
(SAMAB). The Southern Appalachian Assessment Aquatics Technical Report. Report 2 of 5.
USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.
Johnson, P.D., C. St. Aubin, and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2005. Freshwater mussel survey results for the
Cherokee and Chattahoochee districts of the United States Forest Service in Tennessee and
Georgia. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama. 32 pp.
Jones, J.W. and R.J. Neves. 2007. Freshwater mussel status: Upper North Fork Holston River,
Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist, 14(3): 471-480.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Mississippi's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 2009. Mississippi Dept. of
Wildlife Fisheries and Parks. Accessed Feb. 8, 2010 at:
http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Types%20121.pdf
Neves, R. J. and M. C. Odom. 1989. Muskrat predation on endangered freshwater mussels in
Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:934–941.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
Simpson, C.T. 1914. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Naides or Pearly Fresh-water Mussels.
Bryant Walker: Detroit, Michigan. 1540 pp.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2010. North Carolina Wildlife Action
Plan: Hiwassee River Basin, Little Tennessee River Basin. Accessed Feb. 8, 2010 at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan/documents/HiwasseeRiverBasin/HRB-FULL.pdf and
http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan/documents/LittleTennesseeRiverBasin/LTRB-Full.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Clinch and Powell Valley watershed
ecological risk assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC;
EPA/600/R-01/050. Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
<http://www.epa.gov/ncea>

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 527

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2006. Virginia's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy: Virginia's Southern Cumberland Mountains. Accessed Feb. 8, 2010 at:
http://bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-action-plan/chapter-9.pdf
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 528

 Scientific Name:
Fusconaia escambia
Common Name:
Narrow Pigtoe
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
The range of the Narrow Pigtoe encompasses 250-1000 square km in the Escambia River
drainage in Alabama and Florida and the Yellow River drainage in Florida (Williams and Butler
1994, NatureServe 2008). Its historical distribution included the main channel of the Escambia
River, in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties in Florida, the Conecuh River in Escambia,
Covington, Crenshaw, and Pike Counties in Alabama, and Murder Creek in Conecuh County,
Alabama. This bivalve is known from the main channel of the Yellow River in Okaloosa County,
Florida (Williams et al. 2000), but may be extirpated in the Yellow River system. The known
range in the Escambia drainage was recently expanded based on surveys in which either live
individuals or shell materials were encountered, and now includes Patsaliga Creek in Covington
and Crenshaw Counties, Bottle Creek in Conecuh County, and Panther and Three Runs Creeks in
Butler County, Alabama, all within the Escambia River drainage (FWS 2003).
Habitat:
This species is found primarily in the channels of small to medium-sized streams and rivers in
sand, silty sand, gravel, or sandy gravel substrate in slow to moderate currents (Heard 1979,
Deyrup and Franz 1994, Mirarchi et al. 2004). At least one population is known from a silty
backwater area, and this species may occur in sloughs and river oxbows (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
The Narrow Pigtoe is a short-term brooder. Females are gravid in June and eggs and glochidia are
red. Host fish species are unknown (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are from 6-80 populations of Narrow Pigtoe. There are
21-22 extant populations in the Escambia River drainage, and the species may be extirpated in the
Yellow River drainage (Mirarchi et al. 2004, Williams et al. 2000, NatureServe 2008). All
remaining populations of this species have low numbers of individuals, with an average of 3
surviving individuals per site (Williams et al. 2000). This species has questionable long-term
viability, and it is unknown whether recruitment is occuring. If recruitment is occurring, it is
likely low (USFWS 2003). Pilarczyk et al. (2006) reported newly detected populations of this
species in the Choctawhatchee River drainage in southern Alabama (NatureServe 2008).
NatureServe (2008) estimates the total population size of Narrow Pigtoe to be 2500 - 10,000
individuals, but this is likely an overestimate. Williams et al. (2000) reported 65 individuals from
179 sites. Pilarczyk et al. (2006) reported two live individuals from Patsaliga Creek in the
Choctawhatchee River drainage.
Population Trends:
The Narrow Pigtoe is declining in the short term and moderately declining in the long term (2550 percent). Recent surveys show a 24 percent decline in historic range (29 historical sites), but
this number does not reflect the loss of the species in an entire river basin. Within its limited range, this

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 529

 species occurs in low abundance. This mussel is extirpated from the Yellow River
drainage and is declining in the Choctawhatchee River drainage in Alabama and Florida (Pilarczyk
et al. 2006, NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Narrow Pigtoe is critically imperiled in Florida, and imperiled in Alabama (NatureServe
2008). It is listed as endangered by the IUCN. It is a federal Candidate species. It is ranked as
threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) lists habitat loss and degradation as the most significant threat to the Narrow
Pigtoe. Many land-use activities threaten the integrity of stream and river habitats by contributing
to sedimentation and water quality degradation including highway and reservoir construction,
improper forestry practices, agricultural runoff, housing developments, pipeline crossings, and
livestock grazing. Sedimentation can kill mussels by deposition and suffocation (Ellis 1936, Brim
Box and Mossa 1999) and can prevent or decrease the recruitment of juvenile mussels (Negus
1966, Brim Box and Mossa 1999). Suspended sediment interferes with feeding (Dennis 1984).
Many of the confirmed extant populations of Narrow Pigtoe are near highway and unpaved road
crossings. Highway and bridge construction and maintenance could negatively affect populations
of Narrow Pigtoe due to erosion and sedimentation. Reservoir construction and the resultant
habitat changes (e.g., changes of sediments, flow, water temperature, dissolved oxygen) can
negatively impact mussel populations (Neves et al. 1997). This mussel’s habitat is also degraded
by nutrient input such as phosphorus and nitrogen emanating from agricultural fields, residential
lawns, livestock feedlots, poultry houses, and leaking septic tanks (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Narrow Pigtoe. This mussel is
currently a Federal Candidate species in dire need of Endangered Species Act protection. It is a
Priority 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama, but this designation provides no
regulatory protection. It is not listed by the state of Florida. NatureServe (2008) states that few (13) occurrences are appropriately protected, noting that at least one occurrence may border the
Conecuh River in Alabama, but the sites are largely unprotected. NatureServe (2008) also notes
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to reduce non-point source pollution impacts,
particularly in terms of sedimentation in small stream drainages. Some efforts have been made to
work with private landowners to encourage the use of Best Management Practices to protect water
quality (FWS 2003, NatureServe 2008).
In addition to consideration of federal listing, NatureServe (2008) provides the following
management recommendations for this species: "Protect populations through acquisitions and
easements by working with government agencies and conservation organizations; establish buffers
and streamside management zones for all agricultural, silvicultural, mining, and developmental
activities; maintain high water and benthic habitat quality; consider propagation and reintroduction
of cultured stock."
Other factors:
Several other factors imperil the Narrow Pigtoe. This species is particularly vulnerable to
catastrophic events because populations are generally small and geographically isolated. Any
factor which negatively affects host fish populations is detrimental for the Narrow Pigtoe. This
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 530

 species is potentially negatively affected by invasive species such as the Asiatic clam, zebra
mussel, and black carp (USFWS 2003, NatureServe 2008). In addition, this mussel is threatened
because some populations may be below the effective population size to maintain long-term
viability (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Brim Box, J. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and
problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 18(1): 99-117.
Dennis, S.D. 1984. Distributional analysis of the freshwater mussel fauna of the Tennessee River
system, with special reference to possible limiting effects of siltation. Ph.D. Thesis. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 247 pp.
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology, 17: 29-42.
Heard, W.H. 1979. Identification manual of the fresh water clams of Florida. State of Florida,
Department of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series, 4(2): 1-82.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Negus, C.L. 1966. A quantitative study of growth and production of unionid mussels in the River
Thames at Reading. Journal of Animal Ecology, 35: 513-532.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of aquatic
mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. Pages 43-85 in
G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Pilarczyk, M.M., P.M. Stewart, D.N. Shelton, H.N. Blalock-Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2006.
Current and Recent historical freshwater mussel assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains.
Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2): 205-226.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Candidate and listing priority assignment form:
Fusconaia rotulata, Ptychobranchus jonesi, Fusconaia escambia, Lampsilis australis, Pleurobema
strodeanum, Villosa choctawensis, Quincuncina burkei. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama
City Field Office, Panama. 20 pp.
Williams, J.D. and R.S. Butler. 1994. Class Bivalvia, Order Unionoida, freshwater bivalves.
Pages 53-128, 740-742 in M. Deyrup and R. Frantz (eds.) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
Volume 4. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Williams, J.D., H.N. Blalock, A. Benson, and D.N. Shelton. 2000. Distribution of the freshwater
mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae and Unionidae) in the Escambia and Yellow river
drainages in southern Alabama and western Florida. Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 61 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 531

 Scientific Name:
Fusconaia masoni
Common Name:
Atlantic Pigtoe
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
The range of the Atlantic Pigtoe is now highly reduced as the majority of populations in large
river mainstreams have been extirpated, and the mussel is now limited to headwater areas in the
drainages where it still exists (NatureServe 2008).
This species once ranged from the Ogeechee drainage in Georgia north to the James River
drainage in Virginia (Bogan 2002). In Georgia, populations in the Ogeechee system have been
reduced to Jefferson and Jenkins counties, and these populations are likely not viable (Sukkestad
et al. 2006, NatureServe 2008). In South Carolina, the species has not been detected in the
Savannah drainage in over a century, and its status in the Pee Dee drainage in South Carolina is
unknown (Bogan and Alderman 2004, NatureServe 2008). In Virginia, the Atlantic Pigtoe still
occurs in the Upper and Middle James, Nottoway, Appomatox, Lower Dan, Meheriin, Rivanna, and
Upper Roanoke systems. In North Carolina, this mussel has been extirpated in Northampton
County and from the Deep River in Moore County, Cape Fear River in Harnett and Cumberland
Counties, and Black River in Sampson, Bladen, and Pender Counties (Bogan 2002, LeGrand et al.
2006, NatureServe 2008). It still occurs in North Carolina in the Catawba, Pee Dee (including
Goose Creek), Cape Fear, Neuse, Pamlico, and Roanoke River basins, in Bladen, Caswell,
Chatham, Curham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, Halifax, Harnett, Johnston, Montgomery,
Moore, Nash, Orange, Pender, Person, Pitt, Randolph, Sampson, Union, Wake, Warren, Wayne,
and Wilson counties (Bogan 2002, LeGrand et al. 2006, NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The Atlantic Pigtoe is dependent on clean, fast flowing water with high dissolved oxygen content
in riverine or larger creek environments. Because this species prefers more pristine conditions, it
typically occurs in headwaters and rural watersheds. It is associated with gravel and coarse sand
substrates at the downstream edge of riffles, and less commonly occurs in cobble, silt, or sand
detritus mixtures (Adams et al. 1990, Bogan and Alderman 2004, NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
The ecology of the Atlantic Pigtoe has not been studied, but based on its drastically reduced
range, this mussel is likely negatively affected by reduced water quallity, altered flow regimes,
euthrophication, siltation, and pollution (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
The Atlantic Pigtoe was once widespread, but now exists in fewer than 20 populations, having
experienced a large reduction in range, numbers and extent. The total population size for this
species is unknown (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The Atlantic Pigtoe has undergone a very rapid population decline of 50-70 percent in the short term,
and has also declined substantially over the long term, from 50-75 percent. In most historic large river
habitats, populations have either been extirpated or are highly reduced. The species was once found in

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 532

 every Atlantic drainage in North Carolina except for two, but has been reduced to only six basins
(Johnson 1970, Bogan 2002, NatureServe 2008). In Georgia the species is either extirpated or nonviable
(Sukkestad et al. 2006). The species may also be extirpated in South Carolina (Bogan and Alderman
2004, NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Atlantic Pigtoe as critically imperiled in Georgia and North
Carolina, imperiled in Virginia, and its status in South Carolina has not been determined. It is
ranked as Endangered by the IUCN. Both range and population size for this species have been
highly reduced, with most extant populations harboring only a few individuals (NatureServe
2008). It is ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010
draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss and degradation is the greatest threat to the Atlantic Pigtoe. This species depends on
clean, fast-flowing water with high dissolved oxygen content and is thus negatively affected by
impoundments, alterations in flow regime, and water pollution. Augspurger et al. (2003) found
that the glochidia of this mussel are especially sensitive to pollution. High intensity land use,
point and non-point source pollution, siltation, and eutrophication all threaten the continued
existence of this species (NatureServe 2008). This mussel is specifically threatened by reduced
water quality due to logging (NatureServe 2008). Because mussels are dependent on host fishes
for reproduction, any factor which threatens the Atlantic Pigtoe's host fish threatens the survival
of the mussel. In Georgia, the Dept. of Natural Resources reports that this species is threatened
by development and timber removal in the Ogeechee River basin, excessive sedimentation from
development and agriculture, and eutrophication and degraded water quality from poor agricultural
practices (Wisniwewsi 2008). The Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries (2010) reports
that the Atlantic pigtoe is threatened by habitat fragmentation from agriculture and municipal
development, sediment load and turbidity alteration from agriculture and forestry, and hydrologic
regime alteration from municipal development.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the Atlantic Pigtoe which has declined
precipitously and is in dire need of protection. This mussel is state listed as endangered in South
Carolina where historical populations may no longer be extant (Bogan and Alderman 2004,
NatureServe 2008). It is listed as endangered in the state of Georgia, but this designation does not
confer substantial regulatory protection for the species' habitat. Riparian lands purchased to
mitigate adverse effects to mussels on sections of Turkey and Moccasin creeks in North Carolina
may provide the species with some habitat protection, but it lacks meaningful protective status
throughout its range.
Other factors:
Factors which degrade water quality and contribute to pollution threaten the Atlantic Pigtoe including
point and non-point contamination, siltation, eutrophication, and alterations in flow regime (NatureServe
2008). The Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries (2010) reports that the Atlantic pigtoe is
threatened by insecticides from agriculture and municipal development. Because mussels are dependent
on host fishes for reproduction, any factor which threatens the Atlantic Pigtoe's host fish threatens the
survival of the mussel (Neves et al. 1997).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 533

 References:
Adams, W.F., J.M. Alderman, R.G. Biggins, A.G. Gerberich, E.P. Keferl, H.J. Porter, and A.S.
van Davender (eds.) 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater and
terrestrial molluscan fauna. Report to NCWRC by Scientific Council on Freshwater and
Terrestrial Mollusks. 246 pp.
Augspurger, T., A.E. Keller, M.C. Black, W.G. Cope, and F.J. Dwyer. 2003. Water quality
guidance for protection of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) from ammonia exposure.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 22: 2569-2575.
Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.
Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Alderman. 2004. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of South
Carolina. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 64 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard
University, 140(6): 263-449.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Sukkestad, K.E., E.P. Keferl, and T.D. Bryce. 2006. Freshwater molluscs of Fort Stewart,
Georgia, U.S.A. American Malacological Bulletin, 21(1/2): 31-38.
Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2010. The Virginia Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
Appendix H — Threats to Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Accessed March 26, 2010 at:
http://www.bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-action-plan/appendix-h.pdf
Wisniewski, J. 2008. Anodonta heardi Species Account. Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources.
Available at: http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/1379 Accessed Jan. 22, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 534

 Scientific Name:
Fusconaia rotulata
Common Name:
Round Ebonyshell
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
The Round Ebonyshell has one of the most restricted ranges of any North American mussel. The
total historical range of this species is approximately 95 km, and the extant range is 43 km. It is
endemic to the Apalachicolan region and is restricted to the main channel of the
Escambia/Conecuh River in Florida and Alabama, where it is known from east Brewton, Escambia
County, Alabama (Conecuh River), downstream for a distance of approximately 75 river km, with
no known occurrences in tributaries (Williams and Butler 1994, Johnson 1967, NatureServe
2008). The historical range of the Round Ebonyshell was recently expanded, based upon the
detection of relict shells, to include the Conecuh River from the junction with the Sepulga River,
Escambia County, Alabama, downstream in the Escambia River to Bluff Springs, Escambia and
Santa Rosa Counties, Florida for a total historic range of approximately 95 km (59 river miles B
RM) (USFWS 2003, Williams et al. 2000).
Habitat:
The Round Ebonyshell occurs in moderate current in areas of sand and gravel substrate (Williams
and Butler 1994, Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Ecology:
This species is presumed to be a short-term brooder based on characteristics of its congeners.
Host fishes are unknown (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Populations:
There are three remaining populations of Round Ebonyshell, which consist, on average, of two
live individuals per population. Only 3 of 9 historic locations contain living mussels. It is not
known whether remaining populations are capable of reproduction and recruitment (USFWS
2003, NatureServe 2008). NatureServe (2008) estimates total population size of this species at
50 - 1000 individuals.
Population Trends:
The Round Ebonyshell is declining very rapidly (decline of 50-70 percent) in the short term and
substantially declining (decline of 50 - 75 percent) in the long term (NatureServe 2008). There
are three remaining sites which support an average of two individuals each.
Status:
The Round Ebonyshell is critically imperiled in Florida and Alabama (NatureServe 2008). It is a
Federal Candidate and is likely to become extinct on the candidate list waiting for full protection
as there are only three extant populations supporting roughly two individuals each. This mussel is
in critical need of immediate ESA protection. It is ranked as endangered by the American
Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
The Round Ebonyshell is particularly susceptible to extinction from habitat degradation based on
its limited distribution and rarity (Mirarchi et al. 2004). It occurs only in a small stretch of a

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 535

 single river, and NatureServe (2008) describes this river as “one of the most degraded in Florida.”
NatureServe (2008) states that habitat modification is the most significant threat to this species. A
single habitat destroying event could drive this species to extinction. It is threatened by activities which
degrade water quality (eg. eutrophication, sedimentation) including road building and maintenance,
logging, agricultural and municipal runoff, urbanization, and livestock grazing.
Overutilization:
Any level of collection would have dire consequences for this species since so few individuals
remain.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Round Ebonyshell, and no occurrences
are appropriately protected and managed, with all known populations occurring in an unprotected
reach of the Conecuh/Escambia River (NatureServe 2008). It is a Priority 1 Species of Greatest
Conservation Concern in Alabama, but this designation does not afford the mussel with any
regulatory protection. It is not state-listed in Florida. This species is currently a Federal Candidate
and should be immediately listed to prevent extinction.
NatureServe (2008) provides the following management recommendations for the Round
Ebonyshell: "Strongly consider federal listing as endangered; propagate for culture/future
reintroduction. Protect populations through acquisitions and easements by working with
government agencies and conservation organizations; establish buffers and streamside management
zones for all agricultural, silvicultural, mining, and developmental activities; maintain high water
and benthic habitat quality. Conservation activities have been limited to working with private
landowners in south Alabama and west Florida to encourage the use of Best Management Practices
to reduce the effects of agriculture and silviculture (see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003)."
Other factors:
The Round Ebonyshell is threatened by several other factors. Because there are only three extant
populations, all or which are small and isolated, this species is particularly vulnerable to
catastrophic events. Remaining populations may be below effective population size to maintain
long-term genetic viability. This mussel is potentially threatened by invasive species such as
Asiatic clam, zebra mussel, and black carp (USFWS 2003, NatureServe 2008). Any factor which
threatens host fishes also threatens the Round Ebonyshell (NatureServe 2008).

References:
Brim Box, J. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and
problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 18(1): 99-117.
Heard, W.H. 1979. Identification manual of the fresh water clams of Florida. State of Florida,
Department of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series, 4(2): 1-82.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic Slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 140(6):
263-449.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 536

 Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
and maintenance, logging, agricultural and municipal runoff, urbanization, and livestock grazing. 255
pp.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of aquatic
mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. Pages 43-85 in
G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Candidate and listing priority assignment form:
Fusconaia rotulata, Ptychobranchus jonesi, Fusconaia escambia, Lampsilis australis, Pleurobema
strodeanum, Villosa choctawensis, Quincuncina burkei. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama
City Field Office, Panama. 20 pp.
Williams, J.D. and R.S. Butler. 1994. Class Bivalvia, Order Unionoida, freshwater bivalves.
Pages 53-128, 740-742 in M. Deyrup and R. Frantz (eds.) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
Volume 4. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Williams, J.D., H.N. Blalock, A. Benson, and D.N. Shelton. 2000. Distribution of the freshwater
mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae and Unionidae) in the Escambia and Yellow river
drainages in southern Alabama and western Florida. Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 61 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 537

 Scientific Name:
Fusconaia subrotunda
Common Name:
Longsolid
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The longsolid is a relatively large freshwater mussel native to the eastern United States; it is found
in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennesssee, Virginia, and West Virginia (NatureServe 2008). It is known from the Detroit River,
Lake Erie, the Ohio River drainage from Pennsylvania downstream to Illinois and Kentucky, the
Cumberland River drainage downstream of the falls, and the Tennessee River drainage (Williams
et al. 2008).
Habitat:
It is found in large and medium-sized rivers with moderate or fast flow gradients, and prefers sand
or gravel substrate (Watters 1995, Cicerello and Schuster 2003).
Ecology:
Reproduction is similar to that of other freshwater mussel species, but glochidial hosts are
currently unknown (NatureServe 2008). Juveniles (glochidia) are parasitic on their hosts, and
adults filter feed on detritus in the water column. This species is not migratory: adults are
essentially sessile, though may be moved downstream by water currents. The longsolid is highly
sensitive to water pollution, siltation, or other disturbance to habitat, and to the loss of glochidial
hosts (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are 6-20 elemental occurrences of this species, and total
population size is estimated at 1000-2500 individuals.
Once widely distributed across the Ohio River drainage, this mussel is now found only in the
Muskingum River and parts of the upper Tennessee and Cumberland River drainages in Ohio, and
is considered rare. It is known from the Hiwassee and French Broad Rivers (Bogan 2002), and
from Cherokee, Clay, and Transylvania Counties (LeGrand et al. 2006) in North Carolina, and is
extirpated from Buncombe County. In Tennessee, it is reported from the Clinch, Powell, Elk,
lower Tennessee, and Cumberland Rivers, occasionally from the Holston, Tellico and Hiwassee
Rivers, and is likely extirpated from the Little Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). In
Alabama, it remains only in the Tennessee River tailwaters of the Guntersville and Wilson dams,
and in the Paint Rock River (rare in all locations), though it was once present in reaches of the
Tennessee, Cumberland, and Ohio River (Mirarchi et al. 2004, Williams et al. 2008). Kentucky’s
populations are patchily distributed in the lower Green River (Cicerello and Schuster 2003), and
in the middle Green and Barren Rivers (Cochran and Layzer 1993). In Pennsylvania, the
longsolid is found in Muddy Creek, and in the Connoquenessing and middle Allegheny-Tionesta,
though it was once widespread throughout the state (PA NHP pers. comm. as cited in NatureServe
2008). Remnant populations are known in Copper Creek and the upper Clinch River in Virginia
(Fraley and Ahlstedt 2000, Jones et al. 2001). This species is believed extirpated from Indiana
(Fisher 2006) and from Illinois (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 538

 Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the longsolid has experienced long-term decline of up to 75
percent, and that this mussel has declined in the short-term by up to 30 percent. It is extirpated
from many historical locations.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists the longsolid as critically imperiled in Alabama, North Carolina,and
Pennsylvania, imperiled in Arkansas and West Virginia, and vulnerable in Kentucky, Tennessee,
and Virginia. It is reportedly extirpated from Illinois and Indiana, likely extirpated from Georgia,
and its status is under review in Ohio. It is state-listed as endangered in Ohio and Indiana,
threatened in West Virginia, and of special concern in Kentucky and Virginia. The Kentucky Dept.
of Fish and Wildlife Resources (2005) reports that this mussel is vulnerable to critically
imperiled in over 90 percent of its global range. Its rank is being changed from special concern
(Williams et al. 1993) to threatened by the American Fisheries Society (draft 2010, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Numerous sources report that longsolid is threatened by habitat loss and degradation caused by
impoundments, dredging, gravel and sand quarrying, agriculture, development, and coal mining
(U.S. EPA 2002, Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2005, NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the longsolid: though some populations
occur in ostensibly protected sanctuaries or natural areas, it is not possible to exclude the impacts
of upstream impoundments, pollution, dredging, or other harmful activity from these areas.
NatureServe (2008) reports that no occurrences of this species are adequately protected. Though
it is listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern in several states (Ohio, Indiana, West
Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia), these state-level designations afford the longsolid no substantial
regulatory protection.
Other factors:
The longsolid is threatened by water pollution from agriculture, coal mining, urban runoff, and
confined animal feeding operations (U.S. EPA 2002, Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Resources 2005, NatureServe 2008). It is also potentially threatened by invasive bivalves, such as
the zebra mussel (NatureServe 2008). Many populations of this species are now isolated and have
very low abundance, which diminishes their genetic viability.
References:
Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.
Cicerello, R.R. and G.A. Schuster. 2003. A guide to the freshwater mussels of Kentucky.
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series, 7: 1-62.
Cochran, T.G. II and J.B. Layzer. 1993. Effects of commercial harvest on unionid habitat use in
the Green and Barren Rivers, Kentucky. Pages 61-65 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and
L.M. Koch (eds.) Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels: Proceedings of a
UMRCC Symposium, 12-14 October, 1992, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River
Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 18

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 539

 Fisher, B.E. 2006. Current status of freshwater mussels (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash River
drainage of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 115(2): 103-109.
Fraley, S.J. and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2000. The recent decline of the native mussels (Unionidae) of
Copper Creek, Russell and Scott Counties, Virginia. Pages 189-195 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I.
Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater
Mollusk Symposia Proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2005. Kentucky's Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed March 31, 2010 at:
http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/Volume%20II/Bivalvia/Bivalvia.htm#866
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 11, 2009).
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Clinch and Powell Valley watershed
ecological risk assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC;
EPA/600/R-01/050. Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
<http://www.epa.gov/ncea>
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the
Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
908 pp.
Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993.
Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries, 18(9): 622.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 540

 Scientific Name:
Gomphus consanguis
Common Name:
Cherokee Clubtail
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
This dragonfly is recorded from Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and North Carolina. It is
known from the SE highlands area from SW Virginia to NE Alabama, plus one locality in the
western Piedmont of North Carolina (Roble 1997).
Habitat:
The Cherkoee clubtail inhabits small, spring-fed streams (usually first or second order) with sand,
gravel and fine detritus substrate in partly shaded to open areas. Adults and larvae are often
concentrated in mud-bottomed sections of these streams (NatureServe 2008). G. consanguis
requires high water quality, and its habitats are usually spring-fed (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates 21 - 80 populations with fewer than 1000 individuals of this
species. There are probably not more than 50 adults at any time in most populations, but this
species may have a two-year larval stage (Carle in Terwilliger 1991).
In Georgia, this species is known from nine streams in the extreme northwestern part of the state
(Beaton, 2007b). It is rare and locally uncommon and occurs in Chattooga, Floyd, and Walker
counties (Mauffray and Beaton, 2005). In Alabama, this species is rare and only known from
Blount and St. Clair counties (Tennessen et al., 1995). In North Carolina, known from Burke and
Davie counties (LeGrand et al., 2006). In Tennessee, known from Sullivan County (TN Natural
Heritage Program, 2008) and Meigs and McMinn counties (Hopper and Tennessen, 2007). In
Virginia there are 9-10 occurrences (Roble, 1997). There are 3 occurrences in Washington
County and 6 occurrences in Scott County (VA Natural Heritage Program, 2008). Surveys in
Virginia (Stevenson and Roble, 1995; Roble, 1996, 1997) suggest that this species is
considerably more common than previously (e.g., Carle in Terwilliger, 1991; Morse et al. in Benz
and Collins, 1997) believed. Tennessen and Hopper (2007) found G. consanguis in two counties
in eastern Tennessee (McMinn and Meigs) in 2004-2005. There are probably several dozen more
populations to be discovered elsewhere within the current known range.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports a short-term decline of 10-30 percent. It is probably declining due to
habitat loss and degradation, but may be stable. Apparently the species is tolerant of some organic
pollution.
Status:
This species is listed as Endangered by IUCN (Odonata Specialist Group, 1996), and it was a
Federal C-2 Candidate Species until that list was abolished. The Cherokee clubtail is listed as
Threatened in the State of Georgia (Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 391-4-10-.09 2009).
According to Tennessen and Hopper (2007), “Dunkle (2004) rated G. consanguis as a species of
conservation concern, stating that it occurs in ‘rather pristine spring fed streams’ and appears to be

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 541

 sensitive to watershed disturbance.”
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Alabama (S1S2), Georgia (S1S2),
North Carolina (S1S2), and Tennessee (S1), and imperiled in Virginia.
Habitat destruction:
Although this dragonfly is tolerant of some organic pollution, its habitat faces numerous threats
across its range.
NatureServe (2008) indicates that part of one Tennessee stream is used as a fish hatchery. Other
streams where this species occurs are subject to agricultural pollution, and spring-fed habitats are
subject to developmental usage and pollution. NatureServe also reports that the headwaters of
some streams are degraded by cattle grazing.
Tennessen and Hopper (2007) report that “[t]he streams in which the species was found are
impacted by farm operations, and population numbers appear to be low. … The streams surveyed
in this report are not pristine. Evidence indicates that logging, road building, farming practices,
and cattle waste continue to impact the watersheds. It is highly likely that population numbers
were higher prior to settlement and development of this area, but without historical data, it is not
possible to assess the degree of impact. The new records fill a gap in knowledge of the
distribution of G. consanguis, but the low population numbers indicate its status as rare should not
be changed. “
The Cherokee Clubtail is threatened by a proposed quarry near Alabaster, Alabama. The threats the
quarry poses, according to the University of Montevallo, are water cycle changes that would dry
up the swamp; accelerated sinkhole development in the surrounding area; and increased
downstream flooding. Mike Hardig, UM associate professor of biology, warns that ''a limestone
quarry in this location will have widespread and profound effects on the ecology of the region. It
will adversely impact the local flora and fauna as well as the people that live in the area'' (Wilstach
2005).
This species is also threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005). Mountaintop
removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause significant downstream and groundwater
pollution. Pollutants associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota
(Palmer et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders of aquatic
macroinvertebrates (Wood 2009).
Individuals of G. consanguis and its habitat were likely impacted by the Tsali Forest Health
Project on the Cheoah Ranger District of the Nantahala National Forest (USFS 2001a).
G. consanguis is found near Beaver Creek and Clear Creek Reservoirs in Tennessee, managed by
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA 2009a). The TVA Index of Biotic Integrity Scores for
Beaver Creek Reservoir has been poor every year since 1995, and for Clear Creek Reservoir it
has been fair or poor.
It also occurs near South Holston Reservoir in Tennessee and Virginia, where the Benthic

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 542

 Community Assemblage scores have been poor every year since 2000 in both the forebay and the
transition zone, except for 2006 when the transition zone was Fair (TVA 2009b).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are no currently protected sites occupied by this species.
One site in Virginia is likely to be purchased by the state in the near future (1999-2000) but the
headwaters of this stream will continue to be impacted by grazing cattle. Gomphus consanguis is a
U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species on the Cherokee National Forest (USFS 2001b) and is found
on the Nantahala National Forest (USFS 2001a), but protection provided to Sensitive Species is
discretionary. In 2001The Nature Conservancy bought The Cleveland Barrens in Russell County,
VA, including habitat for G. consanguis, and donated it to the State of Virginia (Bowman 2000).
Other factors:
The invasive Hemlock Woolly Adelgid may impact individuals of G. consanguis (USFS 2005).
References:
Beaton, G. 2007a. Dragonflies and Damselflies of Georgia and the Southeast. University of
Georgia Press: Athens, Georgia. 355 pp. Updates available at:
http://www.giffbeaton.com/dragonflies.htm.
Beaton, G. 2007b. July 22-last update. Giff Beaton's Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata) of
Georgia and the Southeast. Online. Available: http://www.giffbeaton.com/dragonflies.htm.
Benz, G. W. and D. E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern
Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1. Lenz Design &
Communications, Decatur, Georgia. 554 pp.
Bick, G.H. 1983. Odonata at risk in conterminous United States and Canada. Odonatologica 12
(3):209-226.
Bowman, R. 2000. Gift To State: A Land Full Of Natural Rarities;Russell Tract To Be Bestowed
For Preservation. Richmond Times Dispatch. October 31, 2000.
DUNKLE, S. W. 2004. Critical species of Odonata in North America. Int. J. Odonatology,
7(2):149-162.
Hopper, A.E., and K.J. Tennessen. 2007. New distribution records of Gomphus consanguis
(Odonata: Gomphidae) in Tennessee (report). Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science
82(1-2):40-41.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Mauffray, B., and G. Beaton. 2005. The distribution of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) of
Georgia. Bulletin of American Odonatology 9(2):21-66.
Needham, James G., and Minter J. Westfall, Jr. 1954. A Manual of the Dragonflies of North
America (Anisoptera). University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 615 p.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 543

 Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum
of Natural History University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper Number 56:86 pp.
Roble, S. M. 1996. Status survey for the Cherokee Clubtail (STENOGOMPHURUS
CONSANGUIS) in Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 96-27. Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. Unpublished report to
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 8 pp. plus appendix
Roble, S. M. 1997. Status survey for the Cherokee Clubtail (STENOGOMPHURUS
CONSANGUIS) in Virginia, 1997.
Stevenson, D. J., and S. M. Roble. 1995. Status survey for the Cherokee Clubtail (GOMPHUS
CONSANGUIS) in Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report 95-18. Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond. Unpublished report to
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 7
pp. plus appendix.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 2009a. Northeastern Tributary Reservoirs Land Management Plan
And Environmental Impact Statement. Volume II. Beaver Creek And Clear Creek Reservoirs.
Available online at
http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/ntrlmp/pdf/deis/draft_vol_ii_beaver_and_clear_creek_l
and_plan.pdf. Last accessed March 8, 2010.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 2009b. Northeastern Tributary Reservoirs Land Management Plan
And Environmental Impact Statement. Volume V. South Holston Reservoir. Available online at
http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/ntrlmp/pdf/deis/draft_vol_v_south_holston_land_%20p
lan.pdf. Last accessed March 8, 2010.
Tennessen, K. J., J. D. Harper, and R. S. Krotzer. 1995. The distribution of Odonata in Alabama.
Bulletin of American Odanotology 3(3):49-74.
Tennessen, K.J.; A.E. Hopper. 2007. New distribution records of Gomphus consanguis (Odonata:
Gomphidae) in Tennessee.(Report). Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science. Available at
accessmylibrary: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-175170709/new-distributionrecords-gomphus.html. Last accessed March 08, 2010.
Terwilliger, Karen. 1991. Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium held at
Va. Tech. April 1989. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Forest Service. 2001a. Decision Notice for the Tsali Forest Health Project. Available
online at http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/cheoah/tsali_dn.pdf. Last accessed March 8, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 544

 U.S. Forest Service. 2001b. Biological Evaluation for Brush Creek Mountain Timber Sale.
Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/cherokee/planning/environmental%20assessments/BrushCreekMtn/BC
M_Appendix%20E-BiologicalEvaluations.pdf. Last Accessed March 8, 2010.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Environmental Assessment for the Suppression of Hemlock Woolly
Adelgid Infestations on the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. Available online at
http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/hwa_revised_ea.pdf. Last accessed March 9, 2010.
Westfall, M.J., and R.P. Trogdon. 1962. The true GOMPHUS CONSANGUIS Selys. Florida Ent.
45(1):29-41.
Wilstach, N. Friends of Ebenezer Swamp fight quarry plans. Birmingham News (Alabama) July 6,
2005.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 545

 Scientific Name:
Gomphus sandrius
Common Name:
Tennessee Clubtail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
This dragonfly is known from six streams, all northern tributaries of the Duck River in the
southern one-third of the Inner Basin of the Central Basin of south-central Tennessee
(NatureServe 2008). It occurs in a 60 square mile area within three counties.
Habitat:
G. Sandrius is found in slow streams with limestone substrate (NatureServe 2008). Larvae burrow
in silt behind rocks or clumps of water willow, while adults forage in fields.
Populations:
G. sandrius is known from six streams. There are probably hundreds to thousands on each stream,
with a total estimated population of at least 2500 adults.
Population Trends:
Tennessen (1994), based on anecdotal evidence, thought the population had decreased by 25-50
percent in ten years.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled. IUCN (2010) now considers this
species Vulnerable. It was a Federal C-2 Candidate Species until that list was abolished.
Habitat destruction:
This species is threatened by agriculture including pesticide run-off, organic pollution, and cattle
trampling of banks (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Downloaded on 18 March 2010.
Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum
of Natural History University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper Number 56:86 pp.
Tennessen, K.J. 1983. A new species of GOMPHUS from Tennessee (Odonata:Gomphidae).
Annals Ent. Soc. Amer. 76(4):743-746.
Tennessen, K.J. 1994. Status survey for GOMPHUS SANDRIUS and OPHIOGOMPHUS
ACUMINATUS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency. 47
pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 546

 Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 547

Scientific Name:
Gomphus septima
Common Name:
Septima's Clubtail
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Septima’s clubtail is a river-breeding dragonfly endemic to the mid-Atlantic and southeastern
United States; populations are disjunctly distributed in New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
and Alabama (NatureServe 2008, Krotzer 2002). Natural heritage records place this species in
Chatham, Harnett, Lee, Moore, Stanley, Union, and Wake Counties in North Carolina (extirpated
from Durham County), in Mercer, Sussex and Warren Counties in New Jersey, and in New York’s
Sullivan County. It is currently known from roughly 16 rivers, the majority in North Carolina
(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This clubtail is present only in rocky sites with high water quality (well-oxygenated, rapid current)
over gravel substrate, often in areas with silt or muddy reaches (NatureServe 2008, IUCN 2007).
It is found in inland wetlands and permanent streams, rivers, and creeks (IUCN 2007).
Ecology:
Adults are diurnally active and feed on invertebrates, foraging both from the ground and from
trees. Juveniles overwinter in their larval form, emerging in May and June (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
This dragonfly is known from approximately 16 rivers. The Delaware River population could
count as four occurrences, but additional surveys may link these occurrences into one continuous
occurrence. Total population size is unknown (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Septima's clubtail has declined by up to 30 percent in the short-term, and up to 50 percent in the
long-term (NatureServe 2008). This species has been extirpated from several sites in North
Carolina (North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources 2001).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is critically imperiled in New Jersey, New York,
Alabama, and North Carolina, and not yet assessed in Tennessee and Virginia. It is considered a
species of special conservation concern across most of its range, and is a former candidate for
federal protection.
Habitat destruction:
Loss and degradation of habitat is a primary threat to this dragonfly (Hudsonia Environmental
Research Institute 2010, NatureServe 2008). The New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation (2005) reports that this species is threatened by changes in the natural hydrology
such as the building of dams, and increases in sediment loads resulting from logging, agriculture,
and other activities. The type locality of the subspecies of this species was destroyed by the
construction of a dam (Bick 2003). The damming of rivers is an ongoing threat to this species
(Abbott 2007 in IUCN 2008).The Laurel Bluffs North Carolina site on the Rocky River is
threatened by runoff from a large agricultural field that extends to the river with no riparian buffer

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 548

 (Chatham County Planning Dept. 2010). This dragonfly is also threatened by development
(NatureServe 2008). Populations are also fragmented and isolated by changes in habitat quality,
which contributes to declines in long-term viability.
Overutilization:
This species is sought by dragonfly collectors, as evidenced by this blog account of a collector
actively seeking this species:
"Weather is always a major factor in any dragonfly collecting trip . . . My target was Septima's
Clubtail, Gomphus septima, a fairly large, dully marked species that I had originally planned to
look for on my return trip through North Carolina. Giff and Steve Krotzer had seen them on the
Cahaba River just a few days before . . . Later I did find my Septima's Clubtails (males are very
wary) then headed back east” (Accessed March 31, 2010 at:
http://homepage.mac.com/edlam/dragonflyroad/5_07SE.html).
The extent to which collecting affects populations has not been assessed, but given the rarity of
this species, and in conjunction with other threats such as pollution and habitat loss, collecting
could increasingly threaten this dragonfly.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that few occurrences are appropriately protected or managed: the
Delaware population occurs within the Delaware River National Recreation Area, and the Little
Cahaba River population in Alabama is on a Nature Conservancy preserve (Krotzer 2002).
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Septima’s clubtail; though it is
considered a species of special conservation concern in much of its range, this designation offers
the clubtail no substantial regulatory protection.
Other factors:
Septima's clubtail is limited to areas of high quality water, and is thus threatened by pollution
(Abbott 2007 in IUCN 2008). The New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (2005)
reports that this species is threatened by changes in dissolved oxygen content, direct effects of
pesticides, and chemical contamination. The Laurel Bluffs North Carolina site on the Rocky River
is threatened by agricultural run-off and wastewater treatment effluent (Chatham County Planning
Dept. 2010). Chemical pollution can kill larvae and adults directly and can negatively impact both
life stages by reducing prey availability. Mosquitoes and blackflies are important food sources for
dragonflies, and spraying to control these pests may greatly reduce available food in any given
location (Hudsonia Environmental Research Institute 2010). Adult dragonflies can be killed by
collisions with vehicles, which can negatively impact small populations in areas of limited habitat
availability (Hudsonia Environmental Research Institute 2010).
References:
Abbott, J.C. 2007. Gomphus septima. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2009.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 11 November 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 549

 Bick, G.H. 2003. At Risk Odonata of Conterminous United States. Bulletin of American
Odonatology 7(3): 41-56.
Chatham County Planning Department. 2010. Natural Areas Wildlife Inventory. Accessed March
31, 2010 at:
http://www.co.chatham.nc.us/dept/planning/planning_dept/misc/Nat_Areas_Wildlife_Inventory/
Environmental_Inventory/Riparian_Riverine_Communities_pt2.pdf
Hudsonia Environmental Research Institute. 2010. Hudsonia Harlem Valley Biodiversity Manual
Supplement. Accessed March 31, 2010 at: hudsonia.org/wp-content/files/Odonata08_done.pdf
Hudsonia Ltd. 2009. Hudsonia Harlem Valley Biodiversity Manual Supplement. Accessed
online November 11, 2009 << http://hudsonia.org/wp-content/files/Odonata08_done.pdf>>
Krotzer, S. 2002. Gomphus septima rediscovered in Alabama. Argia, 14(2):10.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
November 9, 2009)
New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation. 2005. New York State Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Appendix A5. Species Group Reports for Insects. Accessed
March 30, 2010 at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/appendixa5.pdf
North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. Division of Water
Resources. Cary Interbasin Transfer Environmental Impact Statement. Accessed March 31, 2010
at: http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Interbasin_Transfer/Status/CaryApex/CaryEI
S.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 550

 Scientific Name:
Gomphus westfalli
Common Name:
Westfall's Clubtail
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The entire range of Westfall's clubtail in Florida is only about 25 km in diameter (Deyrup and
Franz 1994). This dragonfly is known from only four streams in Santa Rosa County within or near
the Blackwater River State Forest. Westfall's clubtail could possibly be a subspecies of G.
diminutus , and the Center is hereby petitioning for either the species of the subspecies, should it
be validated.
Habitat:
G. westfalli is associated with sphagnum-bog trickles and streams (Deyrup and Franz, 1994).
Larvae burrow in silt, and adults forage in open forest near ground level. Surrounding habitat needs
periodic burning, which should not be done during the spring flight season. Larvae require acidic
slowly moving water (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
G. westfalli is known from only four streams in Santa Rosa County within or near the Blackwater
River State Forest (NatureServe 2008). It is estimated that there are hundreds of individuals on
each stream.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is stable in the short term, based on the assumption
that state forest habitat is being properly managed for this species.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled. IUCN categorizes it as Vulnerable
(Abbott 2007). It was also a Federal C-2 Candidate Species until that list was abolished.
Habitat destruction:
Excessive clear-cutting is a threat to this species (NatureServe 2008). This species requires
patches created by fire, and is potentially threatened by altered fire regime or by prescribed fires
if conducted in the wrong season.
According to Abbott (2007): "Gomphus westfalli is in greater jeopardy than previously believed;
although this insect is locally abundant, the entire known range is encompassed within a radius of
a few kilometers. At present the future of the species must be considered highly uncertain (Carle
and May 1987). Bick (2003) indicated that the total range of this species is very likely the
smallest of any U.S. Anisopteran. The species is known from only four streams, but most
populations are within a state forest and so could be fairly well protected/managed. The
assessment is based on its restricted range, with less than five known locations, and the potential
threat of deforestation."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 551

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that most populations of G. westfalli are within Blackwater State
Forest so could be fairly well protected/managed. There are no data, however, to indicate that the
forest is being appropriately managed to accommodate this species, which is threatened by
clearcutting and requires appropriate fire regime. No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this
dragonfly.
References:
Abbott, J.C. 2007. Gomphus westfalli. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 22 March 2010.
Bick, G.H. 2003. At-risk Odonata of conterminous United States. Bulletin of American
Odonatology. 7(3): 41–56.
Carle, F. L., and M. L. May. 1987. GOMPHUS (Phanogomphus) WESTFALLI spec. Nov. from
the Gulf Coast of Florida (Anisoptera: Gomphidae). Odonatologica 16(1):67-75.
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum
of Natural History University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper Number 56:86 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 552

 Scientific Name:
Graptemys barbouri
Common Name:
Barbour's Map Turtle
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
Barbour's Map Turtle occurs in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama (NatureServe 2008). It principally
occurs in the Apalachicola River system in the panhandle of Florida and in adjacent Georgia and
Alabama, including the Flint River up to Lack Blackshear, the Chattahoochee River up to Russell
County, and Chipola rivers and tributaries. It was recently detected in the Ochlockonee River, but
this could have resulted from introduction (Enge et al. 1996). There is an erroneous record from
the Escambia River (Sanderson and Lovich 1988, Lovich and McCoy 1992). There are
Pleistocene fossils of this turtle from the Santa Fe River in Florida (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This turtle is associated with relatively wide, clear streams with swift currents and abundant snags
and downed trees, often in areas with exposed limestone. It is found in alluvial and spring-fed
rivers and tributaries in areas that support its mollusk prey. At night it uses submerged limbs just
below the water's surface for resting. During cold periods, it rests in limestone substrate
depressions. Eggs are buried in sand at the water's edge. Like many turtles, Barbour's Map Turtle
uses logs for basking (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Barbour's Map Turtles prey primarily on snails and bivalves and also consume aquatic insects,
particularly caddisfly larvae. Ashton and Ashton (1985) reported that this turtle's home range
consists of only a few hundred square yards. Females may not become sexually mature until age
15 or older. Clutch size ranges from 4 to 11 eggs which are deposited on sandbars or on the
riverbank. Multiple clutches may be produced annually.
Populations:
There are fewer than 20 populations of Barbour's Map Turtle, but the exact number of elemental
occurrences is difficult to determine as all individuals within a river system potentially
interbreed. Total population size is unknown and is estimated at 1000-10,000 individuals, with a
few thousand individuals considered likely (NatureServe 2008). It is scarce in some parts of its
range, such as the Chattahoochee, and fairly abundant in others. In the Apalachicola, Flint, and
Chipola rivers it is relatively common, with more than 12 turtles being detected per mile. Updated
population data are needed due to increasing threat from collection.
Population Trends:
Based on survey data from the 1990's, Barbour's Map Turtle has experienced moderate decline.
Decline in Florida has been suggested but is undocumented, and available data more strongly
suggest decline in Georgia (P. Moler, pers. comm., 1995, cited in NatureServe 2008).
Status:
Barbour's Map Turtle is imperiled (S2) in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia (NatureServe 2008). It is
classified as Near Threatened by the IUCN. It is a State Protected species in Alabama, a Species
of Special Concern in Florida, and is listed as Threatened by the State of Georgia.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 553

 Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss and degradation resulting from channelization, dredging, and pollution are known
threats for Barbour's Map Turtle (NatureServe 2008). The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources
also reports that habitat degradation resulting from impoundment is a threat to this species
(http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/graptemys_barbouri.pdf). This turtle
is dependent on a healthy molluscan prey base for survival, and its mollusk prey are also
threatened by siltation and water quality deterioration resulting from dredging, channelization,
impoundment and pollution (NatureServe 2008). According to the Georgia Dept. of Natural
Resources (GDNR), anthropogenic impacts have slowed water flow, altered water quality
conditions, and drastically reduced the native molluscan prey base. Removal of trees and snags for
navigability also threatens this turtle by reducing the availability of basking sites (GDNR). This
turtle is also threatened by collisions with barge traffic (NatureServe 2008).
Overutilization:
Overutilization is a dire threat for Barbour's Map Turtle. Despite some legal restrictions, this
turtle is harvested for meat, collected for the pet trade, and snagged and killed on trotlines and
bush hooks intended for other targets (NatureServe 2009, GDNR 2009). Recreational shooting
also threatens the Barbour's Map Turtle (GDNR 2009). Collection exacerbates the threat this
species already faces from habitat loss. Overutilization contributes to localized declines and
extirpations and is pushing this restricted-range species closer to extinction. Reed and Gibbons
(2003) report that nearly 1,200 Barbour's Map Turtles were declared as exported from 19962000, at least 800 of which were wild-caught. This does not include the number of unreported and
illegally harvested turtles. Schlaepfer et al. (2005) argue that the status of map turtles is so dire
that the trade in wild-caught animals should be halted or severally reduced due to the level of
export and life-history characteristics that make them particularly vulnerable to overharvesting.
Studies have shown that the removal of long-lived, slow-growing animals with life history traits
designed for replacement reproduction spread out over the course of a lifetime results in
population decline (Congdon et al. 1993, 1994). The elimination of individuals from populations
that are already threatened because of habitat degradation is an additive impact on already stressed
populations. Buhlmann and Gibbons (1997) state that even presently abundant species are of
concern because of the vast numbers of freshwater turtles being removed from the wild and
shipped to other countries. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission reports that
demand for freshwater turtles is increasing. In recent decades heavy commercial harvest of
southeastern freshwater turtles has occurred to meet foreign demand for turtles for use as meat,
pets, and in traditional medicine. Over 13 million adult turtles were being sold annually in Asian
countries by the late 1990s. Even limited take of turtles is unsustainable because of the key role of
large adult female turtles in sustaining populations
(http://myfwc.com/docs/CommissionMeetings/2009/2009_Apr_FreshwaterTurtle.pdf).
Disease or predation:
Proliferative shell disease is a known threat for Barbour's Map Turtle (Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles 2009, http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/stateconservation.php). The Flint
River population of this species is also threatened by a sometimes fatal disease of unknown
etiology (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect this species. It is a Species of
Special Concern in Florida. NatureServe (2008) reports that no occurrences are appropriately

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 554

 protected and managed. Despite some state protections against take, this turtle is illegally
harvested for meat and for the pet trade, is intentionally shot, and is accidentally trapped on lines
set for other species. Schlaepfer et al. (2005) state that map turtles are not adequately protected
against overcollecting despite their current legal status under CITES. This species is in dire need
of Endangered Species Act protection.
References:
Ashton, R. E., Jr., and P. S. Ashton. 1985. Handbook of reptiles and amphibians of Florida. Part
two. Lizards, turtles & crocodilians. Windward Pub., Inc., Miami. 191 pp.
Congdon J.D., A.E. Dunham, R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and
demographics of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): Implications for conservation and
management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7: 826– 833.
Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1994. Demographics of common snapping
turtles: Implications for conservation and management of long-lived
organisms. American Zoologist 34:397-408.
Enge, K. M., R. L. Cailteux, and J. J. Nordhaus. 1996. Geographic distribution: GRAPTEMYS
BARBOURI. Herpetological Review 27:150-151.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Freshwater turtle trade in Florida
and recommendations for regulatory action.
http://myfwc.com/docs/CommissionMeetings/2009/2009_Apr_FreshwaterTurtle.pdf
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources. 2009.
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/graptemys_barbouri.pdf
Lovich, J. E., and C. J. McCoy. 1992. Review of the GRAPTEMYS PULCHRA group (Reptilia:
Testudines: Emydidae), with descriptions of two new species. Annals of the Carnegie Museum
61(4):293-315.
Reed, R.N. and J.W. Gibbons. 2003. Conservation status of live U.S. nonmarine turtles in
domestic and international trade. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at:
www.graptemys.com/turtle_trade.doc
Sanderson, R. A., and J. E. Lovich. 1988. GRAPTEMYS BARBOURI. Catalogue of American
Amphibians and Reptiles 421:1-2.
Schlaepfer, M.A., C. Hoover, and C.K. Dodd, Jr. 2005. Challenges in evaluating the impact of the
trade in amphibians and reptiles on wild populations. BioScience 55(3):256-264.
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. 2009. State conservation links and
information. http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/stateconservation.php

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 555

 Scientific Name:
Graptemys ernsti
Common Name:
Escambia Map Turtle
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The Escambia Map Turtle is found only in the Pensacola (Escambia) Bay drainage (NatureServe
2008). It occurs in the Conecuh, Escambia, Yellow, and Shoal rivers in southern Alabama and
western Florida (Lovich and McCoy 1992, 1994).
Habitat:
This turtle uses medium to large rivers that have more alluvial than blackwater characteristics
(Lovich and McCoy 1992). It is also frequently detected in small streams. It requires basking
sites and beaches with fine sand for nesting. It does not occur in rivers that do not support its
freshwater mollusk prey and also avoids salt waters, rarely occurring within a mile of the river
mouth (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are fewer than five populations of Escambia Map Turtle, with this turtle only occurring in
two river systems, both of which drain into a single bay, making elemental occurrences difficult
to determine. Data are lacking on total population size, but it is estimated that there are several
thousand individuals (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The population trend for this turtle is thought to be stable, but due to recent collection pressure,
surveys are needed to confirm stability (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Escambia Map Turtle is Imperiled in Alabama and Florida (NatureServe 2008). It is a State
Protected species in Alabama. It is categorized as Near Threatened by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
This turtle is threatened by habitat loss and degradation due to channelization, impoundment, and
removal of snags which are required for basking (NatureServe 2008, Buhlmann and Gibbons
1997). It is also threatened by any factor that reduces habitat suitability for its molluscan prey, as
it is absent from streams that lack mollusks (NatureServe 2008). The Florida Wildlife Conservation
Commission reports that this species' stream habitats are highly threatened by fragmentation, altered
hydrologic regime, and sedimentation
(http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Softwater_Stream.pdf). The Army Corps of
Engineers (2006) reports that this turtle is threatened by habitat loss due to urbanization
encroachment (http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/library/technicalreports/ERDC-TR-06-4.pdf).
Overutilization:
Overutilization is a primary threat for the Escambia Map Turtle. The majority of adult mortality is
attributable to trapping, shooting, and commercial collection (NatureServe 2008). Currently this species
is legally allowed to be taken with a possession limit. Schlaepfer et al. (2005) argue that the status of
map turtles is so dire that the trade in wild-caught animals should be halted or severally reduced due to
the level of export and life-history characteristics that make them particularly vulnerable to
overharvesting. Studies have shown that the removal of long-lived, slow-growing animals with life

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 556

 history traits designed for replacement reproduction spread out over the course of a lifetime results in
population decline (Congdon et al. 1993, 1994). The elimination of individuals from populations that are
already threatened because of habitat degradation is an additive impact on already stressed populations.
Buhlmann and Gibbons (1997) state that even presently abundant species are of concern because of the
vast numbers of freshwater turtles being removed from the wild and shipped to other countries. The
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission reports that demand for freshwater turtles is
increasing. In recent decades heavy commercial harvest of southeastern freshwater turtles has occurred
to meet foreign demand for turtles for use as meat, pets, and in traditional medicine. Over 13 million
adult turtles were being sold annually in Asian countries by the late 1990s. Even limited take of turtles is
unsustainable because of the key role of large adult female turtles in sustaining populations
(http://myfwc.com/docs/CommissionMeetings/2009/2009_Apr_FreshwaterTurtle.pdf).
The Florida Turtle Conservation Trust (2008) suggests that due to the broad range of conservation
challenges this species faces, legal take should be eliminated and enforcement programs should be
developed.
Disease or predation:
This species is preyed upon by alligator snapping turtles (NatureServe 2008). In conjunction with
other threats, natural predation could increasingly threaten this species. Nest predation has been
reported in excess of 90 percent (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect this species (NatureServe 2008).
The Yellow River forms the boundary of Eglin Air Force Base, but this does not assure habitat
protection. It has no status in Florida. It is state-listed in Alabama, but this designation conveys no
habitat protection. Schlaepfer et al. (2005) state that map turtles are not adequately protected against
overcollecting despite their current legal status under CITES. Due to recent commercial collection
pressure, this species is in dire need of Endangered Species Act protection.
Other factors:
This turtle is threatened by water pollution, particulary heavy metal pollution. Because of its
dependence on molluscan prey, it also threatened by any form of pollution which harms freshwater
mollusks, including siltation (Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997).
References:
Buhlmann, K.A. and J.W. Gibbons. 1997. Imperiled aquatic reptiles of the Southeast. p. 201-231
In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern
Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and
Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Congdon J.D., A.E. Dunham, R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and
demographics of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): Implications for conservation and
management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7: 826– 833.
Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1994. Demographics of common snapping
turtles: Implications for conservation and management of long-lived organisms. American Zoologist
34:397-408.
Florida Turtle Conservation Trust. 2008. Recent freshwater turtle conservation actions by the
sold annually in Asian countries by the late 1990s. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 557

 http://www.ftct.org/FTCT%20Press%20Release%20%28FWC%20Turtle%20Harvest%29.pdf
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Softwater Stream.
challenges this species faces, legal take should be eliminated and enforcement programs should
behttp://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Softwater_Stream.pdf
Lovich, J. E., and C. J. McCoy. 1992. Review of the GRAPTEMYS PULCHRA group (Reptilia:
Testudines: Emydidae), with descriptions of two new species. Annals of the Carnegie Museum
61(4):293-315.
Lovich, J. E., and C. J. McCoy. 1994. GRAPTEMYS ERNSTI. Catalogue of American
Amphibians and Reptiles 585.1-585.2.
Schlaepfer, M.A., C. Hoover, and C.K. Dodd, Jr. 2005. Challenges in evaluating the impact of the
trade in amphibians and reptiles on wild populations. BioScience 55(3):256-264.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2006. Emerging Species of Concern Resulting from
Urbanization Encroachment near Military Installations.
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/library/technicalreports/ERDC-TR-06-4.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 558

 Scientific Name:
Graptemys gibbonsi
Common Name:
Pascagoula Map Turtle
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The Pascagoula Map Turtle has a relatively small range in the Pascagoula and Pearl river systems
in Mississippi and eastern Louisiana (Lovich and McCoy 1992, NatureServe 2008). In the
Pascagoula watershed, this turtle occurs in the Pascagoula, Leaf, and Chickasawhay rivers, and in
Red, Bowie, Okatoma, and Tallahala creeks. This species is not found in Big Creek, Black Creek,
the Escatawpa River, or in Alabama tributaries of the Pascagoula River (Lovich and McCoy 1992,
1994). In the Pearl River watershed, this species is found in the Pearl and Bogue Chitto rivers and
in Ross Barnett Reservoir (Lovich and McCoy 1992). Dundee and Rossman (1989) reported this
turtle from the Tickfaw River in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, but Lovich and McCoy (1992,
1994) questioned the validity of this record.
Habitat:
The Pascagoula Map Turtle uses medium to large rivers especially those with abundant mollusk
prey, deep pools, sandy banks or sandbars for nesting, and logs or other structures for basking
(Lovich and McCoy 1992). At night it usually clings to submerged objects just below water's
surface, but sometimes comes onto sandy beaches or into shallow water (Dundee and Rossman
1989).
Populations:
There are an estimated 6-20 populations of Pascagoula Map Turtle, with occurrences in several
streams in two major drainage basins (Lovich and McCoy 1994). Total population size is unknown
but it is thought that there are at least a few thousand individuals (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The population trend of this turtle is reported as moderately declining to relatively stable
(NatureServe 2008), but better documentation of trend is needed due to recent increases in
commercial collection. It is thought to be declining in the Pascagoula River (Robert Jones, pers.
comm., 1997 cited in NatureServe 2008). Lindeman (1999) suggested decline in the Pearl River.
Selman and Qualls (2009) reported low abundances of G. gibbonsi in the Pascagoula River
system, and failed to find this species in many historical locations, suggesting localized
extirpations.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) categorizes the Pascagoula Map Turtle as vulnerable in Lousiana and
Mississippi. It is categorized as Near Threatened by the IUCN. Based on updated survey data,
Selman and Qualls (2009) recommend that G. gibbonsi be listed as state Endangered in
Mississippi and Louisiana, U.S. federally listed as Threatened, and upgraded to Endangered (EN)
under IUCN listing guidelines.
Habitat destruction:
The The Pascagoula Map Turtle is threatened by loss of basking sites due to the removal of logs and
snags for boat navigation (Dundee and Rossman 1989). This turtle is also threatened by habitat loss and
degradation due to stream channelization, point-bar mining, and impoundment (NatureServe 2008). The

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 559

 state of Mississippi reports that this turtle's stream habitat is highly threatened by channel modification,
dams and impoundments, headcutting, forestry, resource extraction, and urban and suburban
development
(http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Type%2012-2.pdf).
Similarly, the state of Mississippi reports that this turtle's sandbar habitat is highly threatened by channel
modification, dams and impoundments, recreational activities, resource extraction, and invasive species
(http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Type%205.pdf).
Overutilization:
Overutilization threatens the survival of the Pascagoula Map Turtle. Commerical collection of this
turtle has increased dramatically in recent years (Chris Lechowicz, unpublished report, 2006;
http://graptemys.com/exploitation.htm). There has been a substantial increase in trade of
Graptemys species (FWS Office of Law Enforcement 2000,
http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2005/05-24099.html). Schlaepfer et al. (2005) argue that the
status of map turtles is so dire that the trade in wild-caught animals should be halted or severally
reduced due to the level of export and life-history characteristics that make them particularly
vulnerable to overharvesting. Studies have shown that the removal of long-lived, slow-growing
animals with life history traits designed for replacement reproduction spread out over the course
of a lifetime results in population decline (Congdon et al. 1993, 1994). The elimination of
individuals from populations that are already threatened because of habitat degradation is an
additive impact on already stressed populations. Buhlmann and Gibbons (1997) state that even
presently abundant species are of concern because of the vast numbers of freshwater turtles being
removed from the wild and shipped to other countries.
Disease or predation:
In conjunction with other threats, predation poses an increasing threat to this turtle. Synanthropic
species such as raccoons and crows are known to be major nest predators of this species
(NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect the Pascagoula Map Turtle.
Reed and Gibbons (2003) rank the Pascagoula Map Turtle among the ten most vulnerable turtle
species that lack significant legal protection. Schlaepfer et al. (2005) state that map turtles are not
adequately protected against overcollecting despite some existing state regulations. This species is
included in CITES Appendix III (USFWS 2005). Selman and Qualls (2009) recommend
Endangered Species Act protection for this species.
Other factors:
Pollution is a threat to the Pascagoula Map Turtle. The state of Mississippi reports that water
quality degradation is high-level threat to this turtle's stream habitat (Mississippi's Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy,
http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Type%2012-2.pdf).
This species is threatened by industrial effluents (Dundee and Rossman 1989). Ernst et al. (1994)
report that Graptemys species were absent downstream of a pulp processing plant on the Leaf
River in 1986, whereas upstream they were abundant. This turtle is also threatened by any factor
which threatens the molluscan prey on which it depends.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 560

 References:
Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1994. Demographics of common snapping
turtles: Implications for conservation and management of long-lived organisms. American Zoologist
34:397-408.
Dundee, H. A., and D. A. Rossman. 1989. The amphibians and reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana
State University Press, Baton Rouge.
Ernst, C. H., R. W. Barbour, and J. E. Lovich. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xxxviii + 578 pp.
Jones, Robert. Biologist, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, 111 N.
Jefferson St., Jackson, MI 39201. (601) 354-7303.
Lechowicz, Chris. 2006. Commercialization of Graptemys gibbonsi. Unpublished report.
http://graptemys.com/exploitation.htm
Lindeman, P. V. 1999. Surveys of basking map turtles GRAPTEMYS spp. in three river drainages
and the importance of deadwood abundance. Biological Conservation 88(1):33-42.
Lovich, J. E., and C. J. McCoy. 1992. Review of the GRAPTEMYS PULCHRA group (Reptilia:
Testudines: Emydidae), with descriptions of two new species. Annals of the Carnegie Museum
61(4):293-315.
Lovich, J. E., and C. J. McCoy. 1994. Graptemys gibbonsi. Catalogue of American Amphibians
and Reptiles 586:1-2.
McCoy, C. J., and J. E. Lovich. In press. GRAPTEMYS GIBBONSI, Pascagoula map turtle. In
Pritchard, P. C. H., and A. Rhodin (editors), Conservation of Freshwater Turtles. IUCN Species
Survival Commission.
Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks. 2008. Mississippi's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy. Lower Coastal Plain, Pearl Drainage.
http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Type%20122.pdf
Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks. 2008. Mississippi's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy. Sandbars.
http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Type%205.pdf
Schlaepfer, M.A., C. Hoover, and C.K. Dodd, Jr. 2005. Challenges in evaluating the impact of the
trade in amphibians and reptiles on wild populations. BioScience 55(3):256-264.
Selman, W. and C. Qualls. 2009. Distribution and abundance of two imperiled Graptemys
species of the Pascagoula River System. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 4(2):171U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 16 December 2005. Inclusion of alligator snapping turtle
(Macroclemys [=Macrochelys] temminckii) and all species of map turtle (Graptemys spp.) in Appendix
III to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Federal
Register 70(241):74700-74712.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 561

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Office of Law Enforcement. Inclusion of Alligator Snapping
Turtle (Macroclemys [=Macrochelys] temminckii) and All Species of Map Turtle (Graptemys spp.) in
Appendix III to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 562

 Scientific Name:
Graptemys nigrinoda
Common Name:
Black-knobbed Map Turtle
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The Black-knobbed Map Turtle occurrs in the Mobile Bay drainage system of Alabama and
Mississippi (NatureServe 2008). It is found below the Fall Line in the Alabama, Tombigee, Black
Warrior, Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Cahaba rivers (Tinkle 1959, Shoop 1967, Cliburn 1971, Lahanas
1986, Conant and Collins 1991, Ernst et al. 1994).
Habitat:
This turtle uses rivers and streams with moderate current and sand or clay substrates. It uses logs
and other structures for basking (Ernst et al. 1994). Eggs are deposited in nests excavated on
sandy beaches generally within 50 meters of the water line in sunny areas (Ernst et al. 1994).
Populations:
It is estimated that there are fewer than 20 populations of Black-knobbed Map Turtle
(NatureServe 2008). This turtle occurs in several dozen locations in several rivers (Iverson
1992). There are less than ten elemental occurrences if each major river is classified as a distinct
occurrence (NatureServe 2008). Mirarchi (2004) reports that this turtle is locally fairly common.
Population Trends:
This turtle is declining, but the rate of decline is not known (NatureServe 2008). Mirarchi (2004)
reports the turtle as fairly common in Alabama, but not as common as in the past. There has been
strong documented decline in Mississippi (Ernst et al. 1994).
Status:
The Black-knobbed Map Turtle is classified as Vulnerable in Alabama and Imperiled in
Mississippi (NatureServe 2008). It is listed as Endangered by the state of Mississippi and as a
species of Moderate Conservation Concern in Alabama (Mirarchi 2004). It is categorized as Near
Threatened by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
The Black-knobbed Map Turtle is threatened by habitat loss and degradation from channelization,
impoundment, and removal of logs and snags which eliminates essential habitat elements
including nesting and basking sites (McCoy and Lovich 1993, NatureServe 2008). This turtle is
also threatened by recreation. Adults are killed in collisions with outboard motors and drowned in
gill nets, and nests are destroyed by picnickers and hikers (Ernst et al. 1994).
Overutilization:
Overutilization poses a dire threat to the Black-knobbed Map Turtle. The map turtle's life history traits
make it especially vulnerable to overharvesting, with loss of adult females having long-term population
effects. Reed and Gibbons (2003) report that nearly 10,000 Black-knobbed Map Turtles were declared
as exported from 1996-2000, at least 5,500 of which were wild-caught. This does not include the
number of unreported and illegally harvested turtles. Schlaepfer et al. (2005) argue that the status of map
turtles is so dire that the trade of wild-caught animals should be halted or severally reduced due to the
level of export and life-history characteristics that make them particularly vulnerable to overharvesting.
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is also threatened by target shooting and exploitation for the

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 563

 pet trade. This turtle's meat and eggs are also harvested for use as food (Lahanas 1982, CITES Proposal
1996). Studies have shown that the removal of long-lived, slow-growing animals with life history traits
designed for replacement reproduction spread out over the course of a lifetime results in population
decline (Congdon et al. 1993, 1994). The elimination of individuals from populations that are already
threatened because of habitat degradation is an additive impact on already stressed populations.
Buhlmann and Gibbons (1997) state that even presently abundant species are of concern because of the
vast numbers of freshwater turtles being removed from the wild and shipped to other countries. The
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission reports that demand for freshwater turtles is
increasing. In recent decades heavy commercial harvest of southeastern freshwater turtles has occurred
to meet foreign demand for turtles for use as meat, pets, and in traditional medicine. Over 13 million
adult turtles were being sold annually in Asian countries by the late 1990s. Even limited take of turtles is
unsustainable because of the key role of large adult female turtles in sustaining populations
(http://myfwc.com/docs/CommissionMeetings/2009/2009_Apr_FreshwaterTurtle.pdf).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect this species, and few if any
occurrences are adequately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). Due to harvesting
pressure, Reed and Gibbons (2003) rank the Black-knobbed Map Turtle among the ten most
vulnerable turtle species that lack legal protection. Schlaepfer et al. (2005) state that map turtles
are not adequately protected against overcollecting despite their current legal status. This species
is in dire need of Endangered Species Act protection.
Other factors:
Pollution threatens this species (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Behler, J. L., and F. W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles
and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 719 pp.
CITES. 1996. -last update. The inclusion of all species in the genus GRAPTEMYS in appendix II,
in accordance with article II. Cites II proposal. Online. Available:
http://www.xmission.comgastown/herpmed/graptem.html. 2 parts: 23 pp. Accessed .
Cliburn, J. W. 1971. THe ranges of four species of Graptemys in Mississippi. Journal of the
Mississippi Academy of Science 16:16-19.
Conant, R. and J. T. Collins. 1991. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central
North America. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 450 pp.
Congdon J.D., A.E. Dunham, R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and
demographics of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): Implications for conservation and
management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7: 826– 833.
Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1994. Demographics of common snapping
urtles: Implications for conservation and management of long-lived rganisms. American Zoologist
34:397-408.
Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. Press of Kentucky,
Lexington. x + 347 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 564

 Ernst, C. H., R. W. Barbour, and J. E. Lovich. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xxxviii + 578 pp.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Freshwater turtle trade in Florida
and recommendations for regulatory action.
http://myfwc.com/docs/CommissionMeetings/2009/2009_Apr_FreshwaterTurtle.pdf
Iverson, J. B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world.
Privately printed. Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana.
Lahanas, P. N. 1982. Aspects of the life history of the southern black-knobbed sawback,
Graptemys nigrinoda delticola Folkerts and Mount. Master's thesis, Auburn University, Auburn,
Alabama. 293 pp.
Lahanas, P. N. 1986. Graptemys nigrinoda. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles
396:1-2.
McCoy, C. J., and J. E. Lovich. 1993. GRAPTEMYS GIBBONSI, Pascagoula map turtle. In
Pritchard, P. C. H., and A. Rhodin (editors), Conservation of Freshwater Turtles. IUCN Species
Survival Commission.
Mirarchi, R. E., editor. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume one. A checklist of vertebrates and
selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
Reed, R.N. and J.W. Gibbons. 2003. Conservation status of live U.S. nonmarine turtles in
domestic and international trade. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at:
www.graptemys.com/turtle_trade.doc
Schlaepfer, M.A., C. Hoover, and C.K. Dodd, Jr. 2005. Challenges in evaluating the impact of the
trade in amphibians and reptiles on wild populations. BioScience 55(3):256-264.
Shoop, R.C. 1967. Graptemys nigrinoda in Mississippi. Herpetologica. 23(1):56.
Tinkle, D. W. 1959. The relation of the Fall Line to the distribution and abundance of turtles.
Copeia 1959:167-170.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 565

 Scientific Name:
Graptemys pulchra
Common Name:
Alabama Map Turtle
G Rank:
G4

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The Alabama map turtle occurs in Alabama, Georgia, and possibly Mississippi (NatureServe
2008). The global range of this turtle is restricted to the Tombigbee and Alabama river systems
that empty into Mobile Bay. In northwest Georgia it is only known from the Conasauga River
(Buhlmann and Gibbons 1997).
Habitat:
This turtles occurs in large creeks to medium-sized rivers with moderate current, an abundance of
aquatic vegetation, and logs for basking. It also occurs in oxbows and lakes. It requires sand bars
or sandy banks for nesting, logs or other structures for basking, deep pools, and an abundance of
molluscan prey (Lovich and McCoy 1992, Behler and King 1979).
Ecology:
Females of this species take up to 14 years to reach sexual maturity. Males may become sexually
mature in 4 years (Behler and King 1979).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are likely at least several occurrences of this species,
assuming each major occupied stream system is a distinct occurrence. Total population size is
unknown. This is the most common turtle in the Pearl, Tombighee, and Escambia rivers
(NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The Alabama Map Turtle is moderately declining (NatureServe), but due to recent increases in
collection pressure, updated surveys are warranted to determine trend. Populations of this species
have been notably reduced in accessible portions of its range (Bartlett and Bartlett 1999).
Buhlman and Gibbons (1997) report that this species is declining in Mississippi due to degraded
water quality in the Tombigbee River system (T. Mann, Mississippi Natural Heritage Program,
pers. comm.)
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this turtle as critically imperiled (S1) in Georgia, imperiled in
Mississippi (S2?), and vulnerable in Alabama (S3). It is categorized as Near Threatened by the
IUCN. It is categorized as Rare by the state of Georgia.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is threatened by impoundment and stream channel
alteration. The State of Georgia reports that this species is threatened by habitat loss and degradation due
to impoundment, hydrological modifications, and the removal of snags and logs which are necessary for
basking
(http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accounts/reptiles/grapt
emys_pulchra.pdf). The state of Mississippi reports that this turtle's sandbar habitat is highly threatened
by channel modification, dams and impoundments, recreational activities, resource extraction, and
invasive species

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 566

 (http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Type%205.pdf).
Similarly, the state of Mississippi reports that the Tombigbee drainage is highly threatened by channel
modification, dams and impoundments, headcutting, agriculture, forestry, resource extraction, and
industrial development
(http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Types%2012-1.pdf).
Buhlman and Gibbons (1997) report that this species is declining in Mississippi due to degraded water
quality in the Tombigbee River system (T. Mann, Mississippi Natural Heritage Program, pers. comm.).
Overutilization:
The Alabama Map Turtle is threatened by commercial collection and by intentional shooting for
recreation (NatureServe 2008). Bartlett and Bartlett (1999) cite collection for the pet trade as a
threat to this turtle. The State of Georgia reports that this species is threatened by illegal take for
human consumption and the pet trade
(http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accounts/reptile
s/graptemys_pulchra.pdf). Reed and Gibbons (2003) report that over 160 Alabama Map Turtles
were declared as exported from 1996-2000, at least 111 of which were wild-caught. This does not
include the number of unreported and illegally harvested turtles. There has been a substantial
increase in trade of Graptemys species (FWS Office of Law Enforcement 2000,
http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2005/05-24099.html). Schlaepfer et al. (2005) argue that the
status of map turtles is so dire that the trade in wild-caught animals should be halted or severally
reduced due to the level of export and life-history characteristics that make them particularly
vulnerable to overharvesting. Studies have shown that the removal of long-lived, slow-growing
animals with life history traits designed for replacement reproduction spread out over the course
of a lifetime results in population decline (Congdon et al. 1993, 1994). The elimination of
individuals from populations that are already threatened because of habitat degradation is an
additive impact on already stressed populations. Buhlmann and Gibbons (1997) state that even
presently abundant species are of concern because of the vast numbers of freshwater turtles being
removed from the wild and shipped to other countries. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission reports that demand for freshwater turtles is increasing. In recent decades heavy
commercial harvest of southeastern freshwater turtles has occurred to meet foreign demand for
turtles for use as meat, pets, and in traditional medicine. Over 13 million adult turtles were being
sold annually in Asian countries by the late 1990s. Even limited take of turtles is unsustainable
because of the key role of large adult female turtles in sustaining populations
(http://myfwc.com/docs/CommissionMeetings/2009/2009_Apr_FreshwaterTurtle.pdf).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect the Alabama Map Turtle.
Schlaepfer et al. (2005) state that map turtles are not adequately protected against overcollecting
despite their protected status in some states, due to the recent increase in collection pressure.
Other factors:
This species is threatened by pollution (Buhlman and Gibbons 1997, NatureServe 2008). The State
of Georgia reports that this species is threatened by siltation and pollution, and by factors which
threaten its molluscan prey
(http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accounts/reptile
s/graptemys_pulchra.pdf).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 567

 degraded water quality in the Tombigbee River system (T. Mann, Mississippi Natural Heritage
Program, pers. comm.).
References:
Bartlett, R. D., and P. P. Bartlett. 1999. A Field Guide to Florida Reptiles and Amphibians. Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston. 280 pp.
Behler, J. L., and F. W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles
and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 719 pp.
Buhlmann, K.A. and J.W. Gibbons. 1997. Imperiled aquatic reptiles of the Southeast. p. 201-231
In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern
Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and
Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Congdon J.D., A.E. Dunham, R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and
demographics of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): Implications for conservation and
management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7: 826– 833.
Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1994. Demographics of common snapping
turtles: Implications for conservation and management of long-lived
organisms. American Zoologist 34:397-408.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Freshwater turtle trade in Florida
and recommendations for regulatory action.
http://myfwc.com/docs/CommissionMeetings/2009/2009_Apr_FreshwaterTurtle.pdf
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources. 2009. Graptemys pulchra.
http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accounts/reptil
es/graptemys_pulchra.pdf
Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 2008. Mississippi's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy.
http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Type%205.pdf
Reed, R.N. and J.W. Gibbons. 2003. Conservation status of live U.S. nonmarine turtles in
domestic and international trade. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at:
www.graptemys.com/turtle_trade.doc
Schlaepfer, M.A., C. Hoover, and C.K. Dodd, Jr. 2005. Challenges in evaluating the impact of the
trade in amphibians and reptiles on wild populations. BioScience 55(3):256-264.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Office of Law Enforcement. Inclusion of Alligator
Snapping Turtle (Macroclemys [=Macrochelys] temminckii) and All Species of Map Turtle
(Graptemys spp.) in Appendix III to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora. http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2005/05-24099.html

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 568

 Scientific Name:
Grus canadensis pratensis
Common Name:
Florida Sandhill Crane
G Rank:
T2
Range:
The Florida sandhill crane has a limited range in Florida and Georgia. It occurs in extreme
southeastern Georgia around Okefenokee Swamp and in suitable habitat throughout Florida, but is
scarce south of Lake Okeechobee (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The Florida sandhill crane occurs in prairies, shallow flooded open areas, marshy lake regions,
low lying pastures, along sloughs and in open flats, and near ponds and scattered wooded
hammocks. The crane avoids forests and deep marshes, and may preferentially use open upland
habitats such as pastures and transitional pastures (Nesbitt and Williams 1990). Nesting typically
takes place in marshes, or shallow lakes and ponds with dense emergent vegetation (Johnsgard
1983). Nests are composed of herbaceous plant material in shallow water or on the ground in
marshy areas. Nest disturbance can lead to abandonment (Stys 1997), but some populations appear
to have become tolerant to limited distrubance (Dwyer and Tanner 1992).
Ecology:
The Florida sandhill crane is non-migratory and exhibits year-round home-range fidelity. Subadult
home ranges in north-central Florida average 2132 ha (Nesbitt and Williams 1990). Territorial
adult home ranges are influenced by several factors including habitat quality, status, and season,
and average 447 ha (Nesbitt and Williams 1990). In Georgia, adult cranes establish several
nonoverlapping annual home ranges which average 92 ha, and they move less than 1.0 km among
seasonal ranges (Bennet 1989). Subadult home ranges in Georgia average several hundred
hectares (Bennet 1989). In a study in Georgia, maximum recorded linear movement for adults was
2.6 km, and was 10.5 km for subadults (Bennett 1989).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are from 21-80 populations of this subspecies. The exact
number of populations is unknown and is dependent upon how isolated ponds and pairs are
lumped into population delineations. There are "a few dozen" population concentrations. A 2003
GIS analysis estimated a total population size of 4,594 individuals (Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission 2009).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this subspecies is declining (decline of 10-30 percent). The
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2009) reports a 35.7 percent decline in the
crane population statewide from 1974 to 2003. In 2003, a GIS analysis of landcover using
occupied suitable crane habitat and annual home range sizes, age structure, and average flock size
yielded a population estimate of 4,594 cranes. Based on landcover in 1974, the same analysis
yields a population estimate of 7,142 cranes. Bennett (1989) estimated the total population size
as 5000-6000 individuals, about a quarter of which were nonbreeding subadults. When the 2003
land cover information was compared to actual land-use data from 2006, it was determined that
only 12.2 percent of occupied suitable habitat remained in areas of conservation lands. The Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission reports that this habitat is probably not actively managed
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 569

 for cranes, and is therefore of average quality. Based on this assumption, there are probably no
more than 263 breeding pairs of sandhill cranes currently being sustained on public lands in
Florida (Nesbitt and Hatchitt 2007).
Status:
The Florida sandhill crane is ranked by NatureServe (2008) as imperiled in Florida and critically
imperiled in Georgia. It is listed as threatened by the state of Florida, and has no status in Georgia.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that habitat destruction threatens the Florida sandhill crane,
especially the draining of wetlands for agriculture and real estate development. Activities in crane
habitat threaten this bird because it disappears from areas of heavy human usage.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2009) reports that habitat loss and
degradation is the most common threat to this subspecies. The shallow freshwater marshes and
adjacent uplands on which this bird depends are easily degraded.
Scott (2004) reports that many wetlands that were inhabited for generations by sandhill cranes
have now been drained for agriculture and development. Within its already limited range, the
crane’s specialized habitat is shrinking. Sandhill cranes do forage in improved pastures, but these
areas do not usually furnish adequate nesting sites (Scott 2004).
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (2001) reports that the crane is threatened by ongoing loss of
open rangeland and native prairie to development and conversion to more intensive agricultural
uses such as citrus groves and row crops. The shallow wetlands used by cranes are easily
threatened by drainage change patterns in adjacent uplands even if the wetlands themselves are not
directly disturbed (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2001). The crane is threatened by altered fire
regime, as periodic fire is important to retard the invasion of woody vegetation in crane habitat
(Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2001). The crane is also threatened by altered hydrologic
regimes (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2001).
Stys (1997) reports that the long-term survival potential of the Florida sandhill crane is at risk due
to the increasing rate of habitat loss or modification from filling or draining of wetlands,
degradation or loss of prairie and range habitats, and fragmentation of remaining habitat into
patches too small or too isolated to be suitable for use. Habitat fragmentation and human
disturbances may force sandhill cranes to temporarily or permanently abandon the areas they
inhabit, and may reduce the overall fitness of populations by forcing cranes to travel greater
distances to find foraging and roosting sites. Loss of habitat has resulted in an increasing number
of cranes using suburban and urban areas where they are easily disturbed and face increased
mortality (Stys 1997).Breeding may be delayed or abandoned if suitable foraging or breeding
habitat cannot be located (Nesbitt 1996, Nesbitt and Williams 1990).
The crane is also potentially threatened by reduced wetland habitat quality due to livestock
grazing, which can reduce the amount of vegetation in and around wetlands (Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission 2009). The crane can be threatened by poorly timed wetland
management activities which can flood existing nests or detrimentally impact foraging habitat
(Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission 2009).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 570

 The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2005) identifies threats to the crane’s
habitat by habitat type. The agriculture habitats where this species forages are threatened by
conversion to commercial, industrial, and residential development, and by pollution from
pesticides and nutrient loading. The disturbed and transitional habitats with which this species is
associated are threatened by development, incompatible recreational activities, and invasive
species such as Melaleuca, Australian pine, Brazilian pepper, and Eucalyptus. The crane’s dry
prairie habitat is very highly threatened by conversion to housing and urban development and road
construction and highly threatened by conversion to commercial and industrial development, and
altered hydrologic and fire regime. The crane’s freshwater marsh and wet prairie habitat is very
highly threatened by conversion to agriculture, and conversion to housing and urban development,
and highly threatened by surface water withdrawal, nutrient loading, mining and drilling, road
building, and invasive vegetation. The grassland and improved pasture habitat which supports the
crane is highly threatened by conversion to more intensive agriculture, conversion to housing,
urban development, and recreation areas, and road building. The large alluvial streams with which
the crane is associated are highly threatened by impoundments, water control structures, and
channel modification. The crane’s natural lake habitats are highly threatened by nutrient loading,
invasive plants, dam operations, and conversion to housing and urban development. The reservoir
and managed lake habitats which support the crane are highly threatened by water quality
degradation, contaminants, sedimentation, nutrient loading, recreation, and invasive plants and
animals (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005).
Overutilization:
Historically, overhunting negatively impacted this subspecies (Meine and Archibald 1996).
Concerning the threat of hunting to the crane, Scott (2004) states: “Shooting cranes for sport and
fun caused the initial decline of this species in Florida. The state now outlaws the hunting of
sandhills, although a few cranes are undoubtedly shot each year” (p. 175).
Disease or predation:
Predation by raccoons and fish crows is a cause of nest failure. Eggs and chicks are also lost to
feral hogs, river otters, red-tailed hawks, great-horned owls, American alligators, and coyotes
(Stys 1997). Free-ranging dogs and cats also prey on crane eggs and young (Nesbitt 1996, Scott
2004). Predation by synanthropic predators such as raccoons, crows, coyotes, and feral pets is
likely to increase with increasing development.
Cranes in other states have succumbed to avian cholera, avian botulism, and avian tuberculosis, and
have been killed by mycotoxins from moldy agricultural wastes (Windingstad 1988).
The degree to which disease and/or predation are negatively affecting the Florida sandhill crane has
not been quantified, but in conjunction with ongoing habitat loss and degradation, could
increasingly threaten this subspecies.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The crane occurs on several managed areas in Florida and on Okefenokee National Wildlife
Refuge in Georgia. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (2001) reports that due to the crane’s
large home-range requirements, public lands do not protect large populations of cranes (Florida
Natural Areas Inventory 2001). Also, nesting success in human-altered areas is well below that of
native areas (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2001). Cranes are also easily disturbed (Stys 1997).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 571

 NatureServe (2008) states that the protection of large tracts (at least 2000 acres) of suitable
nesting and foraging habitat is an important measure that could be taken to conserve this bird. This
subspecies is listed as threatened by the state of Florida, but this designation does not provide
meaningful habitat protection. Scott (2004) suggests that a few cranes are still shot annually,
despite state protection. No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this subspecies.
Other factors:
The Florida sandhill crane is threatened by several other factors. Standing water is an important
nesting component for this subspecies, and drought conditions can seriously threaten sandhills
during the breeding season (Scott 2004). Flooding also threatens this bird, as flooding is a major
cause of egg loss in north central Florida (Stys 1997). Proximity of road surfaces to nest sites
increases the risk of flooding and has contributed to nest failure (Dwyer and Tanner 1992). The
crane is easily disturbed and field observers and other disturbances have contributed to nest failure
(Dwyer and Tanner 1992, Hipes et al. 2000).
Sandhill cranes are vulnerable to hazards such as powerlines and fences (Windingstad 1988).
Becoming entangled in barbed wire and other fences is a leading cause of injury and death for
Florida sandhill cranes (Scott 2004). Several cranes in south Florida have been killed or injured
due to collisions with vehicles or airplanes (Stys 1997). Vehicle mortality is especially high when
Florida sandhill cranes are caring for fledgling young (Hipes et al. 2000). Lead poisoning has
caused crane deaths in Colorado and Nebraska (Windingstad 1988).
The long-term survival potential of the Florida sandhill crane is at risk due to small population size
and low reproductive potential (i.e. small clutch size, low recruitment rate, seasonal nesting) (Stys
1997). The relatively low reproductive rate of Florida sandhill cranes is not conducive to rapid
recovery (Scott 2004).
References:
American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1957. The A.O.U. Check-list of North American Birds,
5th ed. Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore, MD. 691 pp.
Bennett, A. J. 1989. Movements and home ranges of Florida sandhill cranes. J. Wildl. Manage.
53:830-836.
Bennett, A. J., and L. A. Bennett. 1990. Productivity of Florida sandhill cranes in the Okefenokee
Swamp, Georgia. J. Field Ornithol. 61:224-231.
Dwyer, N. C., and G. W. Tanner. 1992. Nesting success in Florida sandhill cranes. Wilson Bull.
104:22-31.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative.
Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tallahassee,
Florida, USA. Accessed Feb. 22, 2010 at: http://www.masgc.org/gmrp/plans/FL%20FWCII.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 572

 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Florida Sandhill Crane. Accessed
Feb. 22, 2010 at: www.fwc.state.fl.us/docs/FWCG/Florida_SandhillCrane_final.pdf
Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2001. Field Guide to the Rare Animals of Florida. Accessed
Feb. 22, 2010 at: http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/Grus_canadensis_pratensis.PDF
Hipes, D., D.R. Jackson, K. NeSmith, D. Printiss, and K. Brandt. 2000. Field guide to the rare
animals of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee.
Klugman, S. S., and M. R. Fuller. 1990. Effects of implanted transmitters on captive Florida
sandhill cranes. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:394-399.
Meine C.D. and G.W. Archibald. 1996. The Cranes: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. Accessed Feb. 22, 2010 at:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/cranes/gruscana.htm
National Geographic Society (NGS). 1983. Field guide to the birds of North America. National
Geographic Society, Washington, DC.
Nesbitt, S. A. and J. L. Hatchitt. 2007. Trends in habitat and population of Florida Sandhill
Cranes. Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop 10: 40–42.
Nesbitt, S. A., and K. S. Williams. 1990. Home range and habitat use of Florida sandhill cranes.
Journal of Wildlife Management 54:92-96.
Nesbitt, S.A. 1996. Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus Canadensis pratensis) in Rare and
Endangered Biota of Florida (J.A. Rodgers, H.W. Kale, H.T. Smith, Eds.) Vol V. pp 219-229.
Nesbitt, S.A. and K.S. Williams. 1990. Home range and habitat use of Florida sandhillcranes. J.
Wildl. Management. 54(1):92-96.
Ridgway, R., and H. Friedmann. 1941. The birds of North and Middle America. Part IX. U.S.
Natl. Mus. Bull. 50.
Scott, C. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Animals of Florida and Their Habitats. University of
Texas Press. 381 pp.
Stys, B. 1997. Ecology of the Florida sandhill crane. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 15. Tallahassee, Fl. 20 pp.
http://research.myfwc.com/publications/publication_info.asp?id=49382.
Windingstad, R.M. 1988. Nonhunting mortality in sandhill cranes. Journal of Wildlife
Management 52:260-263.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 573

 Scientific Name:
Gyrinophilus palleucus
Common Name:
Tennessee Cave Salamander
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Tennessee Cave Salamander is patchily distributed in central and south-central Tennessee,
northern Alabama, and northwestern Georgia (Frost 2002, Beachy 2005, NatureServe 2008). Two
subspecies of Tennessee Cave Salamanders are recognized: Sinking Cove Cave Salamanders (G. p.
palleucus) and Big Mouth Cave Salamanders (G. p. necturoides) (AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Habitat:
The Tennessee Cave Salamander occurs at elevations ranging from 150-400 meters. NatureServe
(2008) describes this species' habitat as "streams in caves that contain amphipods and other
aquatic organisms that can serve as food; individuals may be found in rimstone pools, stream runs
and pools, and pools isolated by receding waters; water tends to be clear and free of sediment;
substrates include rock, gravel, sand, and mud (Godwin 1995). Sinkholes are an important habitat
component, allowing for detritus inflow (Caldwell and Copeland 1992). Occasionally occurs in
epigean environments; probably these individuals have been washed out of caves (Bury et al.
1980)."
AmphibiaWeb (2009) provides the following description of this species' habitat: "Tennessee cave
salamanders are found in sinkhole-type caves or phreatic cave systems in the vicinity of sinkholes.
This association is due to the nutrients that flow into these systems and the prey base they
support. Caldwell and Copeland (1992) suggest that inflow (sinkhole) caves versus outflow caves
may provide the best habitat. Animals are found under rocks in rocky and sandy substrates in
quiet, shallow pools (McCrady, 1954; Simmons, 1975; see also Petranka, 1998)."
Ecology:
The Tennessee Cave Salamander is primarily neotenic with only a few transformed adults to have
ever been found. Conant and Collins (1998) state, "Like most salamanders that spend their entire
existence beneath the water, this one has external gills, lacks eyelilds, and has small eyes."
AmphibiaWeb (2009) provides the following information on the ecology of this species. Females
likely lay eggs in autumn or early winter, based on the detection of males with spermatophores in
August (Lazell and Brandon, 1962) and the occurrence of small hatchlings in caves in
December–February (Simmons, 1975; see also Petranka, 1998 in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Tennessee Cave Salamanders consume benthic invertebrates. They are found both under rocks and
in the open and are highly sedentary with individuals often being detected repeatedly in exactly the
same location, indicating small home ranges. Population estimates from various caves reveal
sizes of 25, 32, 48, and 88 animals, with densities ranging from 0.06–0.15 animals/m2
(AmphibiaWeb 2009). Males reach sexual maturity at 66-100 mm SVL. The inner contour of the
vent is sexually dimorphic (Brandon, 1967a). Tennessee Cave Salamanders prey on conspecifics
and on invertebrates such as amphipods, annelids (oligochaetes and earthworms), cladoceran
zooplankton, crayfish, and insects such as coleopterans, plecopterans, ephemeropterans,
trichopterans, dipterans (chironomid larvae), and thrips. Tennessee Cave Salamanders are eaten by

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 574

 conspecifics (Lazell and Brandon, 1962; Simmons, 1975) and American bullfrogs (Rana
catesbeiana), which can inhabit the mouths of cave entrances (Lee, 1969b), and possibly crayfish
(in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are approximately 24 known populations of Tennessee
Cave Salamanders, with other possible occurences (Godwin 1995). Abundance is difficult to
determine but total adult population size probably exceeds 1,000. Available information suggests
that populations contain small numbers of individuals, based on surveys which rarely yield more
than 10-20 individuals per cave visit (Petranka 1998). Population estimates for individual caves
usually are a few to several dozen individuals per cave (Simmons 1975, Petranka 1998). Jess
Elliot Cave is reported as the most significant site in Alabama (Godwin 1995), and Cave Cove
Cave (elevation approximately 425 meters) supports the largest population in Tennessee
(Caldwell and Copeland 1992).
Population Trends:
The Tennessee Cave Salamander is declining in the short term and appears to be relatively stable
over the long term (NatureServe 2008), but several researchers have reported that most
populations appear to be declining (Simmons 1975, Caldwell and Copeland 1992, Redmond and
Scott 1996 in AmphibiaWeb 2009, Beachy 2005). The population in Custard Hollow Cave,
Tennessee, appears to be declining (Caldwell and Copeland 1992).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Tennessee Cave Salamander as critically imperiled (S1) in Georgia
and imperiled (S2) in Alabama and Tennessee. It is ranked as Vulnerable by the IUCN. It lacks
legal protective status.
Habitat destruction:
Dodd (1997) lists habitat alteration as a threat to the Tennessee Cave Salamander. Habitat
destruction and alteration is reported by NatureServe (2008) as a major threat to the Tennessee
Cave Salamander. Petranka (1998) reports that the abundance of some populations has been
affected by siltation and increased water flows associated with deforestation (Petranka 1998).
Tennessee Cave Salamanders are also known to be threatened by mining, urbanization, deposition
of fill and trash in sinkholes, and flooding following dam construction (Caldwell and Copeland
1992, Godwin 1995, Petranka 1998, Beachy 2005).
Miller and Niemiller (2008) cite habitat degradation as an immediate threat to Tennessee Cave
Salamander populations, stating, "In particular, agricultural and silvicultural practices, and
urbanization adversely affect water quality by increasing herbicide and pesticide load, silt load,
and exhaust runoff from roads. . . the Rutherford and Wilson Co. populations of G. palleucus are
in expanding urban areas and are likely to be negatively impacted by urban development" (p. 13).
Gratwicke (2008) states that coal mining threatens cave salamanders in Appalachia.
There has been widespread destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of imperiled amphibian
habitats in the Southeast (Vial and Saylor 1993, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994 in LaClaire 1997, p.
314). Dodd (1997) states: “The integrity of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats is important to
amphibian survival, even among species that never venture beyond a single habitat type.
Furthermore, the various life history stages (eggs, larvae, young, adults) may be differentially
susceptible or sensitive to environmental perturbations . . . Although vast areas have been cleared
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 575

 in the Southeast for agriculture, industry, and urban use, there is virtually no assessment of the
landscape effects of land conversion on amphibian populations. It seems evident, however, that
habitat changes (see papers in Hackney et al. 1992, Boyce and Martin 1993), and with them
changes in aquatic amphibian populations, have been enormous” (p. 177-8).
Habitat loss and degradation obviously negatively affects amphibian populations. LaClaire (1997)
states: “There is a growing body of work documenting (amphibian) population declines on sites
where habitats have been degraded or destroyed (Vickers et al. 1985, Enge and Marion 1986, Ash
1988, Dodd 1991, Raymond and Hardy 1991, Petranka et al. 1993, Phelps and Lancia 1995,
Means et al. 1996). . . Clearly, when the habitat of a given population is destroyed, that population
has gone or will shortly go extinct. Many species may be unable to recolonize areas after local
extinctions, especially when unsuitable habitat exists between the extinct population and extant
populations” (p. 325-326).
Habitat fragmentation can lead to amphibian population extirpation by disrupting metapopulation
dynamics and preventing dispersal and rescue between source and sink habitat. Dodd (1997)
states: “Land use patterns resulting in fragmentation can influence amphibian population genetic
structure . . . if populations become overly fragmented, emigration and immigration may be
inhibited or stopped, thus preventing recolonization from source populations. . . Small isolated
populations are particularly susceptible to environmental perturbations and to stochastic variation
in demography that can lead to extinction even without external perturbations. Isolation by habitat
fragmentation thus becomes a threat to the regional persistence of species” (p. 178).
Logging is detrimental for both aquatic and terrestrial amphibian habitat because it eliminates
shade, increases soil and water temperature, alters stream flow, increases sedimentation, reduces
the input of coarse woody debris and organic matter into streams, reduces forest floor litter
(especially if litter is piled and burned), reduces soil moisture, reduces and eliminates burrows
and hiding places, and destroys wetlands. Logging also frequently involves the use of herbicides
which can be detrimental for amphibians (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html).
Logging is known to decrease amphibian abundance and reproductive success (Dodd 1997,
LaClaire 1997). LaClaire (1997) states: “Habitat destruction and degradation resulting from
timbering operations may create problems for long-term survival of imperiled amphibians
(Kramer et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1993)” (p. 327).
Aquatic amphibian populations are threatened by habitat destruction and water pollution from coal
mining activities in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and by
phosphate mining in Florida (Wallace et al. 1992, LaClaire 2007).
Dodd (1997) states: “In many instances, mining occurs directly through small streams or ponds,
and mine tailings are pushed into the larger rivers. . . Mining not only destroys aquatic amphibian
habitats outright, it also results in toxic pollution, decreased pH, and siltation of streams and
rivers” (p. 180). Gore (1983) showed that low pH and high conductivity due to mining negatively
affect the distribution of larval Desmognathus salamanders in streams on the Cumberland Plateau
(in Dodd 1997).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 576

 Overutilization:
Amphibians are collected from the wild for use as food, pets, and for the biological and medicinal
supply markets (AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/exploitation.html). Dodd
(1997) states: “Collecting specimens for the pet trade or biological laboratories probably has had
some impact on local (Southeast) amphibian populations, but few data are available” (p. 183).
Disease or predation:
New diseases and increased susceptibility of amphibians to existing diseases are known to be
contributing to the decline of amphibian species (http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/diseases.html,
Blaustein et al. 1994, Laurance et al. 1996, Berger et al. 1998, Daszak 2000, Kiesecker et al.
2001, reviewed in AmphibiaWeb 2009). Stress from factors such as habitat loss and
fragmentation, chemical pollution, climate change, invasion of exotic species, increased UV-B
radiation, and natural population fluctuations may increase the susceptibility of amphibians to
disease (Carey 1993, Dodd 1997, Fellers et al. 2001, Kiesecker at al. 2001, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Pathogens known to cause infectious disease in amphibians include bacterial, fungal, viral,
metazoan, water mold, and trematode agents (Wright and Whitaker 2001 in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), has had severe impacts on
amphibian populations worldwide. Chytrid fungus is known to be present in the southeastern U.S.
(AmphibiaWeb 2009) and potentially threatens the Tennessee Cave Salamander.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The Tennessee Cave Salamander was designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1994) as a
Category 2 candidate for Federal listing, but was dropped from the 1996 list (USFWS 1996).
Currently it is a federal species of management concern and is a Priority 2 species of greatest
conservation need in Alabama, but these designations do not provide the species with any
regulatory protection. It is listed as threatened by the states of Tennessee and Georgia. The state
listings do not provide regulatory protection for the species or its habitat, but do require scientific
permits for collection. This salamander occurs in Russell Cave National Monument (Godwin
1995), which provides some habitat protection at that site. NatureServe (2008) recommends
protecting all known populations. Petranka (1998) recommends protecting water quality and
watersheds that drain into sinkhole systems through protective land management initiatives.
Caldwell and Copeland (1992) provide management recommendations for specific sites in
Tennessee.
Other factors:
Tennessee Cave Salamanders are threatened by any factor which decreases water quality including
water pollutants in runoff from agricultural and residential areas (NatureServe 2008).
On threats to cave-dwelling organisms, Scott (2004) states: “Subterranean ecosystems, aquatic and
terrestrial, are extremely delicate environments with stable, constant temperatures, humidity, air
circulation patterns, chemical characteristics, and detrital inputs. Even minor perturbative events
can result in large kills of cave fauna. Threats include agricultural, industrial, and residential
pollutants, especially pesticides and herbicides (which may simply leach through soils); erosion
and siltation caused by destruction of vegetation at sink perimeters; changes in detrital input;
pumping of water; collection of fauna; invasive exotic species; and disturbance of fauna or nutrient
reserves by spelunkers and divers. Humans have slaughtered entire bat colonies in some caves and
caused partial or total abandonment of others, depleting the guano that supplies important
nourishment for many cave invertebrates. Degradation of surface habitats may also threaten cave
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 577

 fauna” (p. 77).
Other factors which threaten imperiled amphibian populations in the Southeast include water
pollution from acidification, toxins, and endocrine disrupting chemicals, reduced prey availability,
climate change, UV-B radiation, invasive species, and synergistic effects from these and other
threats.
Acidification of soils and water bodies is detrimental for amphibians. Acidification of amphibian
habitat can result from acid precipitation and from acid mine drainage. Acid disrupts ion balance in
both terrestrial and aquatic lifestages of amphibians, impairs chemosensory reception, and inhibits
larval feeding (Dodd 1997). Embryos and larvae are particularly sensitive to decreased pH.
Terrestrial salamanders avoid acidified soils. Acidification also has indirect effects which can kill
embryos, larvae, and adults by interfering with egg development, disrupting trophic interactions,
and inducing chronic environmental stress. Low pH also makes amphibians more susceptible to
deleterious effects from heavy metals and increased UV-B radiation (Dodd 1997).
Environmental toxins pose a threat to amphibians in the Southeast due to lethal and sub-lethal
effects which can include mortality, decreased growth rate, behavioral and developmental
abnormalities, lowered reproductive success, weakened immunity, and hermaphroditism (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to toxic
substances because of the permeable nature of their skin. A wide range of chemical stressors are
known to negatively affect amphibians including heavy metals, pesticides, phenols, carbon
tetrachloride, nitrogen based fertilizers, and road salt (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009). The
presence of toxins can also make amphibians more susceptible to disease (Dodd 1997).
Amphibians are also threatened by endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment (eg. Hayes
et al. 2006). Dodd (1997) states: “Amphibians are likely to be especially sensitive to the action of
endocrine mimics because they are in close direct contact with chemicals in their environment,
and the amphibian skin and egg capsule are highly permeable. Because hormones normally
function in minute quantities and are vital to normal development, susceptibility to xenobiotics
could be devastating during the complex changes that occur during hormonally-induced amphibian
metamorphosis” (p. 182).
Toxins and other chemicals can also harm amphibians by reducing food availability. Dodd (1997)
states: “If species that are preyed upon by amphibians decline or disappear, amphibian populations
may be expected to follow suit. The use of pesticides and the influence of toxics, pH, and habitat
alteration all may be expected to affect amphibian prey populations” (p. 184).
Climate change poses a threat for amphibians because it will alter rainfall and temperature patterns
and affect soil moisture (Dodd 1997, Field et al. 2007). Amphibians are particularly sensitive to
minute changes in moisture and temperature, and changes in climate can affect breeding behavior,
reproductive success, and immune function (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ClimateChange.html). Amphibians which breed in temporary
ponds or in water bodies that are sensitive to changes in groundwater level are particularly
susceptible to climate change effects. Drought can lead to localized extirpation, which combined
with habitat fragmentation and impaired dispersal, can contribute to extinction (Dodd 1997).
Southeastern amphibians are also threatened by the invasion of non-native species which prey on or
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 578

 compete with native amphibians.
Nonnative fishes can negatively affect amphibian populations through predation, competition, and
disease introduction. Introduced nonnative amphibians such as the marine toad (Bufo marinus) and
Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) are potentially harmful for native amphibians in the
Southeast. Rossi (1981) found that anuran species richness was reduced in an area where B.
marinus was established (in Dodd 1997). Introduced mammals, such as armadillos and wild hogs,
and introduced birds like cattle egrets “may exact a substantial toll on amphibian populations”
(Dodd 1997). Invasive fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also a potential threat for Southeastern
amphibians. Dodd (1997) states: “Ground dwelling vertebrates are especially sensitive to this
ravenous predator, and fire ants have been reported to kill endangered Houston toads (Bufo
houstonensis) as they metamorphose. Fire ants are especially abundant in the moist perimeter
surrounding ponds and lakes, and they can float in mats across ponds from vegetation clump to
vegetation clump. Fire ants have few predators and have expanded their range throughout the
Southeast” (p. 183). See: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/IntroSp.html.
Synergisms between multiple threats could contribute to the extinction of Southeast amphibians.
Multiple factors acting together have both lethal and sublethal effects
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/synergisms.html). For example, increased UV-B radiation
increases the susceptibility of amphibians to the effects of contaminants, pathogens and climate
change. Dodd (1997): “The amphibians of this area (the Southeast), and particularly the fully
aquatic species, face a multitude of threats to their long-term existence. These threats generally do
not act independently, but instead act in concert to have potentially serious long-term effects” (p.
185).
References:
AmphibiaWeb. 2009. University of California Berkeley. http://www.amphibiaweb.org
Beachy, C. K. 2005. Gyrinophilus palleucus McCrady, 1954. Tennessee cave salamander. Pages
775-776 in M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States
species. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bury, R. B., C. K. Dodd, Jr., and G. M. Fellers. 1980. Conservation of the Amphibia of the
United States: a review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., Resource Publication
134. 34 pp.
Caldwell, R. S., and J. E. Copeland. 1992. Status and habitat of the Tennessee cave salamander,
GYRINOPHILUS PALLEUCUS. Final report submitted to Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency, Nashville, Tennessee. 24 pp.
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins.1998. Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern/Central North America,
3rd ed. Peterson Field Guides. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 615 pp.
Dodd, C. K., Jr. 1997. “Imperiled amphibians: a historical perspective.” Aquatic Fauna in Peril:
The Southeastern Perspective, G. W. Benz and D. E. Collins, ed., Special Pub. 1, Southeast
Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA, 165-200.
Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running and

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 579

 M.J. Scott. 2007. North America Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E.
Hanson, Eds., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
http://www.ipccinfo.com/wg2report_north_america.php
Frost, D. R. 2002. Amphibian Species of the World: an online reference. V2.21 (15 July 2002).
Electronic database available at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html.
Godwin, J. C. 1995. Reassessment of the historical localities of the Tennessee cave salamander
(GYRINOPHILUS PALLEUCUS) in Alabama. Unpublished report submitted to Alabama Natural
Heritage Program. 32 pp.
Gratwicke, B (ed). 2008. Proceedings of the Appalachian Salamander Conservation Workshop.
IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN.
Hayes, T.B. et al. 2006. Pesticide Mixtures,Endocrine Disruption,and Amphibian Declines:Are
We Underestimating the Impact? Environmental Health Perspectives 114(1).
LaClaire, L. V. 1997. Amphibians in peril: resource management in the southeast. Pages.
307–338. in G. W. Benz, D. E. Collins, editors. Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern
perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur,
Georgia, USA.
Miller, B.T. and M.L. Niemiller. 2008. Distribution and relative abundance of Tennessee Cave
Salamanders (Gyrinophilus palleucus and Gyrinophilus gulolineatus) with an emphasis on
Tennessee populations. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(1):1-20.
Petranka, J. W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C.
Scott, C. 2004. Endangered and threatened animals of Florida and their habitats. Austin:
University of Texas Press. 315 pp.
Simmons, D. D. 1975. The evolutionary ecology of Gyrinophilus palleucus. M.S. thesis,
University of Florida, Gainesville. 106 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 580

 Scientific Name:
Gyrinophilus subterraneus
Common Name:
West Virginia Spring Salamander
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
The West Virginia Spring Salamander occurs in a single small cave system in southeastern West
Virginia in Greenbrier County. The entire range of the species is less than 100-250 square km
(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The elevation of the cave system where this species occurs is approximately 530 m (Petranka
1998, NatureServe 2008). This salamander is restricted to the cave and the muddy banks along the
stream in the vicinity of the limestone cave. The stream has sizeable quantities of decaying
organic matter. The salamander relies on consistent water quality and the recharge of organic
material supplied from outside the cave (NatureServe 2008). The stream usually varies in depth
from 15–30 cm, but will flood following rains. Spelunkers have observed West Virginia Spring
Salamanders almost 2 km into the cave (NatureServe 2008, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Ecology:
This salamander feeds on small invertebrates in and along the cave stream (Conant and Collins
1998) including crayfish (Cambarus nerterius), amphipods (Gammarus minus; Stygobromus
spinatus), isopods (Asellus holsingeri), and carabid beetles (Pseudanophthalmus grandis; P.
laldermani) and potentially Cavernous collembolans (Pseudosinella gisini), millipedes
(Trichopetalum weyeriensis and Pseudotremia sp. [probably fulgida]), a pseudoscorpion
(Kleptochthonius henroti), and an oligochaete (Allobophora chlorotica) (AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Larvae metamorphose at about 95 mm SVL, and the largest larvae are either near or have attained
sexual maturity (AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Populations:
The West Virginia Spring Salamander is known only from a single population, the species type
locality. Population size is unknown but is likely less than 300 individuals. Surveys have reported
from ten to less than 100 individuals per survey (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The population trend for the West Virginia Spring Salamander is uncertain, but is estimated to be
likely stable in the absence of habitat alteration (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled (G1S1) (WV). It occurs in a small
population in single cave system which is incompletely protected (NatureServe 2008). It is
classified as Endangered by the IUCN. It lacks legal protective status.
Habitat destruction:
The West Virginia Spring Salamander is threatened by habitat modification. The current land owner has
proposed logging within the watershed which supports the species. Recently during the construction of a
pond, the land owner nearly compromised the structural integrity of the cave (NatureServe 2008).
Because this species occurs at only a single site, modification of its habitat will result in extinction.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 581

 There has been widespread destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of imperiled amphibian habitats
in the Southeast (Vial and Saylor 1993, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994 in LaClaire 1997, p. 314). Dodd
(1997) states: “The integrity of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats is important to amphibian survival,
even among species that never venture beyond a single habitat type. Furthermore, the various life history
stages (eggs, larvae, young, adults) may be differentially susceptible or sensitive to environmental
perturbations . . . Although vast areas have been cleared in the Southeast for agriculture, industry, and
urban use, there is virtually no assessment of the landscape effects of land conversion on amphibian
populations. It seems evident, however, that habitat changes (see papers in Hackney et al. 1992, Boyce
and Martin 1993), and with them changes in aquatic amphibian populations, have been enormous” (p.
177-8).
Habitat loss and degradation obviously negatively affects amphibian populations. LaClaire (1997) states:
“There is a growing body of work documenting (amphibian) population declines on sites where habitats
have been degraded or destroyed (Vickers et al. 1985, Enge and Marion 1986, Ash 1988, Dodd 1991,
Raymond and Hardy 1991, Petranka et al. 1993, Phelps and Lancia 1995, Means et al. 1996). . . Clearly,
when the habitat of a given population is destroyed, that population has gone or will shortly go extinct.
Many species may be unable to recolonize areas after local extinctions, especially when unsuitable
habitat exists between the extinct population and extant populations” (p. 325-326).
Logging is detrimental for both aquatic and terrestrial amphibian habitat because it eliminates shade,
increases soil and water temperature, alters stream flow, increases sedimentation, reduces the input of
coarse woody debris and organic matter into streams, reduces forest floor litter (especially if litter is
piled and burned), reduces soil moisture, reduces and eliminates burrows and hiding places, and destroys
wetlands. Logging also frequently involves the use of herbicides which can be detrimental for
amphibians (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Logging is known to decrease
amphibian abundance and reproductive success (Dodd 1997, LaClaire 1997). LaClaire (1997) states:
“Habitat destruction and degradation resulting from timbering operations may create problems for longterm survival of imperiled amphibians (Kramer et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1993)” (p. 327).
Aquatic amphibian populations are threatened by habitat destruction and water pollution from coal
mining activities in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and by
phosphate mining in Florida (Wallace et al. 1992, LaClaire 2007). Dodd (1997) states: “In many
instances, mining occurs directly through small streams or ponds, and mine tailings are pushed into the
larger rivers. . . Mining not only destroys aquatic amphibian habitats outright, it also results in toxic
pollution, decreased pH, and siltation of streams and rivers” (p. 180). Gore (1983) showed that low pH
and high conductivity due to mining negatively affect the distribution of larval Desmognathus
salamanders in streams on the Cumberland Plateau (in Dodd 1997).
Overutilization:
The West Virginia Spring Salamander occurs at only a single location, therefore collection is a
potential threat to the species. Because of its restricted distribution, Besharse and Holsinger
(1977) strongly recommend that future collecting of specimens be done sparingly (AmphibiaWeb
2009). Amphibians are collected from the wild for use as food, pets, and for the biological and
medicinal supply markets (AmphibiaWeb 2009:
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/exploitation.html). Dodd (1997) states: “Collecting specimens
for the pet trade or biological laboratories probably has had some impact on local (Southeast)
amphibian populations, but few data are available” (p. 183).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 582

 Disease or predation:
The West Virginia Spring Salamander is not currently known to be threatened by disease, but given
the rapid spread of disease to amphibian populations globally, disease is a potential threat to this
species, especially in conjunction with the species' restriction to a single cave system. Because
this salamander occurs at a single site, population extirpation would result in species extinction.
Because this cave is used recreationally, spelunkers could inadvertently introduce disease to this
population.
New diseases and increased susceptibility of amphibians to existing diseases are known to be
contributing to the decline of amphibian species (http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/diseases.html,
Blaustein et al. 1994, Laurance et al. 1996, Berger et al. 1998, Daszak 2000, Kiesecker et al.
2001, reviewed in AmphibiaWeb 2009). Stress from factors such as habitat loss and
fragmentation, chemical pollution, climate change, invasion of exotic species, increased UV-B
radiation, and natural population fluctuations may increase the susceptibility of amphibians to
disease (Carey 1993, Dodd 1997, Fellers et al. 2001, Kiesecker at al. 2001, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Pathogens known to cause infectious disease in amphibians include bacterial, fungal, viral,
metazoan, water mold, and trematode agents (Wright and Whitaker 2001 in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), has had severe impacts on
amphibian populations worldwide. Chytrid fungus is known to be present in the southeastern U.S.
(AmphibiaWeb 2009) and thus potentially threatens this salamander.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the West Virginia Spring Salamander. It
is considered Rare by the state of West Virginia, but this designation does not provide any
regulatory protection. The single occurrence of this species is not appropriately protected
(NatureServe 2008). The Nature Conservancy holds title to one entrance to the cave which
supports this species, and holds an easement on the cave system, but one entrance to the cave is
unmanaged and the watershed which supports the cave is unprotected (NatureServe 2008). For the
protection of the species, NatureServe (2008) recommends acquiring the second cave entrance,
restricting activities in the watershed, limiting human access to the cave, and protecting the surface
environment which supports the cave ecosystem. AmphibiaWeb (2009) states, "Every attempt
should be made to preserve this (species') habitat and its water sources."
Other factors:
On threats to cave-dwelling organisms, Scott (2004) states: “Subterranean ecosystems, aquatic and
terrestrial, are extremely delicate environments with stable, constant temperatures, humidity, air
circulation patterns, chemical characteristics, and detrital inputs. Even minor perturbative events can
result in large kills of cave fauna. Threats include agricultural, industrial, and residential pollutants,
especially pesticides and herbicides (which may simply leach through soils); erosion and siltation caused
by destruction of vegetation at sink perimeters; changes in detrital input; pumping of water; collection of
fauna; invasive exotic species; and disturbance of fauna or nutrient reserves by spelunkers and divers.
Humans have slaughtered entire bat colonies in some caves and caused partial or total abandonment of
others, depleting the guano that supplies important nourishment for many cave invertebrates.
Degradation of surface habitats may also threaten cave fauna” (p. 77).
Other factors which threaten imperiled amphibian populations in the Southeast include water pollution
from acidification, toxins, and endocrine disrupting chemicals, reduced prey availability, climate
change, invasive species, and synergistic effects from these and other threats.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 583

 Acidification of soils and water bodies is detrimental for amphibians. Acidification of amphibian habitat
can result from acid precipitation and from acid mine drainage. Acid disrupts ion balance in both
terrestrial and aquatic lifestages of amphibians, impairs chemosensory reception, and inhibits larval
feeding (Dodd 1997). Embryos and larvae are particularly sensitive to decreased pH. Terrestrial
salamanders avoid acidified soils. Acidification also has indirect effects which can kill embryos, larvae,
and adults by interfering with egg development, disrupting trophic interactions, and inducing chronic
environmental stress. Low pH also makes amphibians more susceptible to deleterious effects from heavy
metals and increased UV-B radiation (Dodd 1997).
Environmental toxins pose a threat to amphibians in the Southeast due to lethal and sub-lethal effects
which can include mortality, decreased growth rate, behavioral and developmental abnormalities,
lowered reproductive success, weakened immunity, and hermaphroditism (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to toxic
substances because of the permeable nature of their skin. A wide range of chemical stressors are known
to negatively affect amphibians including heavy metals, pesticides, phenols, carbon tetrachloride,
nitrogen based fertilizers, and road salt (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009). The presence of toxins can
also make amphibians more susceptible to disease (Dodd 1997).
Amphibians are also threatened by endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment (eg. Hayes et al.
2006). Dodd (1997) states: “Amphibians are likely to be especially sensitive to the action of endocrine
mimics because they are in close direct contact with chemicals in their environment, and the amphibian
skin and egg capsule are highly permeable. Because hormones normally function in minute quantities
and are vital to normal development, susceptibility to xenobiotics could be devastating during the
complex changes that occur during hormonally-induced amphibian metamorphosis” (p. 182).
Toxins and other chemicals can also harm amphibians by reducing food availability. Dodd (1997) states:
“If species that are preyed upon by amphibians decline or disappear, amphibian populations may be
expected to follow suit. The use of pesticides and the influence of toxics, pH, and habitat alteration all
may be expected to affect amphibian prey populations” (p. 184).
Climate change poses a threat for amphibians because it will alter rainfall and temperature patterns and
affect soil moisture (Dodd 1997, Field et al. 2007). Amphibians are particularly sensitive to minute
changes in moisture and temperature, and changes in climate can affect breeding behavior, reproductive
success, and immune function (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ClimateChange.html). Amphibians
which breed in temporary ponds or in water bodies that are sensitive to changes in groundwater level are
particularly susceptible to climate change effects. Drought can lead to localized extirpation, which
combined with habitat fragmentation and impaired dispersal, can contribute to extinction (Dodd 1997).
Southeastern amphibians are also threatened by the invasion of non-native species which prey on or
compete with native amphibians.
Nonnative fishes can negatively affect amphibian populations through predation, competition, and
disease introduction. Introduced nonnative amphibians such as the marine toad (Bufo marinus) and
Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) are potentially harmful for native amphibians in the
Southeast. Rossi (1981) found that anuran species richness was reduced in an area where B. marinus was
established (in Dodd 1997). Introduced mammals, such as armadillos and wild hogs, and introduced
birds like cattle egrets “may exact a substantial toll on amphibian populations” (Dodd 1997). Invasive
fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also a potential threat for Southeastern amphibians. Dodd (1997) states:
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 584

 “Ground dwelling vertebrates are especially sensitive to this ravenous predator, and fire ants have been
reported to kill endangered Houston toads (Bufo houstonensis) as they metamorphose. Fire ants are
especially abundant in the moist perimeter surrounding ponds and lakes, and they can float in mats
across ponds from vegetation clump to vegetation clump. Fire ants have few predators and have
expanded their range throughout the Southeast” (p. 183). See:
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/IntroSp.html.
Synergisms between multiple threats could contribute to the extinction of Southeast amphibians.
Multiple factors acting together have both lethal and sublethal effects
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/synergisms.html). For example, increased UV-B radiation increases
the susceptibility of amphibians to the effects of contaminants, pathogens and climate change. Dodd
(1997): “The amphibians of this area (the Southeast), and particularly the fully aquatic species, face a
multitude of threats to their long-term existence. These threats generally do not act independently, but
instead act in concert to have potentially serious long-term effects” (p. 185).
References:
AmphibiaWeb. 2009. University of California Berkeley. http://www.amphibiaweb.org
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins.1998. Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern/Central North America,
3rd ed. Peterson Field Guides. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 615 pp.
Dodd, C. K., Jr., D. B. Means, and S. A. Johnson. 2005. Notophthalmus perstriatus (Bishop,
1941[a]); striped newt. Pages 887–889 in M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the
conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Los Angeles,
California, USA.
Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running and
M.J. Scott. 2007. North America Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E.
Hanson, Eds., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
http://www.ipccinfo.com/wg2report_north_america.php
Hayes, T.B. et al. 2006. Pesticide Mixtures,Endocrine Disruption,and Amphibian Declines:Are
We Underestimating the Impact?. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(1).
Dodd 1991, Raymond and Hardy 1991, Petranka et al. 1993, Phelps and Lancia 1995, LaClaire, L. V.
1997. Amphibians in peril: resource management in the southeast. Pages. 307–338. in G. W. Benz, D. E.
Collins, editors. Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research
Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, Georgia, USA.
Petranka, J. W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution
(especially if litter is piled and burned), reduces soil moisture, reduces and eliminates burrows Press,
Washington, D.C.
Scott, C. 2004. Endangered and threatened animals of Florida and their habitats. Austin: Logging is
known to decrease amphibian abundance and reproductive success (Dodd 1997, University of Texas
Press. 315 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 585

 LaClaire 1997). LaClaire (1997) states: “Habitat destruction and degradation resulting from
timbering operations may create problems for long-term survival of imperiled amphibians
(Kramer et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1993)” (p. 327).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 586

 Scientific Name:
Haideotriton wallacei
Common Name:
Georgia Blind Salamander
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Georgia Blind Salamander occurs in Jackson County, Florida, and in Dougherty and Decatur
counties, Georgia, in the Marianna Lowlands-Dougherty Plain physiographic region which is a
vast karst area of passageways and exposed vadose caves (NatureServe 2008, AmphibiaWeb
2009). The species is known from a deep well in Albany, Georgia, and from Climax Cave. In the
Florida Panhandle the species has been detected at approximately a dozen sites which allow
access to the Floridan Aquifer, which circulates in underground passageways in limestones of the
Ocala and Suwannee formations (AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Habitat:
This salamander is a resident of the Marianna Lowlands (Dougherty Plain) karst aquifer, at 20-60
m elevation. It is usually found at the bottom of subterranean streams, in clear pools in caves, or
in deep wells, but may sometimes leave the water and climb the limestone walls of caves
(NatureServe 2008). AmphibiaWeb (2009) provides the following information on Georgia Blind
Salamander habitat: Georgia Blind Salamanders are commonly encountered in pools and
underground streams where bats defecate over or near the water. They become less abundant
farther back in subterranean tunnels away from air, likely because their food is scarce. Their
water is usually crystal clear, but following heavy rainfall becomes turbid. Water temperature is
generally 18–21 ˚C. Their habitat has limestone walls and ceiling with fine red clay and silt floors.
Ecology:
Blind salamanders have no need for functional eyes because they spend their entire lifetime in the
dark. They have pink or white translucent skin and dark internal organs are visible through the
lower sides and belly. The Georgia Blilnd Salamander has a long, broad, but not greatly flattened
head (Conant and Collins 1991). These salamanders move slowly, resting on the bottom or
climbing on limestone sidewalls and underwater ledges (Pylka and Warren 1958, Means 1992c in
AmphibiaWeb 2009). Breeding may be aseasonal; gravid females have been detected in May and
September, and adults possibly move to sites of energy recharge (bat caves, sinkholes) to breed.
Gravid females with enlarged ova have been found in May and November (Carr 1939, Means 1977
in AmphibiaWeb 2009). This species is most likely an obligate neotene-- no transformed
individuals have been detected, and larvae do not respond to metmorphosis-inducing agents in the
lab (Dundee 1962, Petranka 1998). This salamander is commonly detected with the Dougherty
Plain blind crayfish (Cambarus cryptodytes; Pylka and Warren, 1958; Means, 1977, 1992c in
AmphibiaWeb 2009). Adult Georgia Blind Salamanders measure 51–76 mm TL; growth rates and
size at maturity have not been studied (Petranka 1998). These salamanders prey on ostracods,
amphipods, isopods, copepods, mites, and beetles, and are likely preyed upon by Dougherty Plain
blind crayfish, freshwater eels (Anguilla rostrata), brown bullheads (Ameiurus nebulosus), and
Florida chubs (Notropis harperi) (Means 1992c, AmphibiaWeb 2009).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 587

 Populations:
There are less than fifteen known populations of Georgia Blind Salamander. Total adult population size
is unknown (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The population trend for the Georgia Blind Salamander is uncertain, but is believed to be
relatively stable or slighly declining in the short term and moderately declining in the long term
(NatureServe 2008). NatureServe (2008) estimates a long-term decline of 30 percent.
Status:
The Georgia Blind Salamander is critically imperiled in Georgia (S1) and imperiled in Florida
(S2). It is categorized as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
The Georgia Blind Salamander is threatened by habitat loss and degradation from activities that
negatively affect water quality, including pollution and water level fluctuation. Activities which
disturb the ground surface above the caves could also degrade or destroy this species' habitat
(NatureServe 2008). At least two formerly occupied caves are known to have been destroyed by
human activities (Means 2005).
The Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission Natural Areas Inventory (2001) cites changes in
water level due to groundwater withdrawal and stream impoundment as threats to this salamander,
as well as rock quarrying (http://myfwc.com/docs/FWCG/Georgia_BLind_sal.pdf). The
commission cites threats to cave habitats associated with this species as incombatible resource
extraction, mining, and drilling
(http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Terrestrial_Cave.pdf).
Florida's karst biota, including the Georgia Blind Salamander, are threatened by habitat loss,
spring modification, ground-water contamination, aquifer withdrawals, saltwater intrusion, and
recreational activities (Drew and Hötzl, 1999, Katz et al. 1999, Walsh 2000, cited in Walsh
2001). Walsh (2001) states: “Springs are frequently modified for consumptive or recreational
purposes, with concomitant impacts on aquatic organisms. Many of Florida's karst species are
threatened by habitat modifications due to their very localized distributions . . . Perhaps the most
serious potential threat to Florida's hypogean and spring faunas is ground-water pollution and/or
saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and aquifer resources are increasingly tapped . . .
In recent years, there have been notable increases in contaminants and nutrients within some
Florida ground-water sources. Eutrophication in spring habitats may result in greater algal growth,
increased turbidity, and physicochemical and biological changes that can be detrimental to native
species.”
There has been widespread destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of imperiled amphibian
habitats in the Southeast (Vial and Saylor 1993, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994 in LaClaire 1997, p.
314). Dodd (1997) states: “The integrity of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats is important to
amphibian survival, even among species that never venture beyond a single habitat type.
Furthermore, the various life history stages (eggs, larvae, young, adults) may be differentially
susceptible or sensitive to environmental perturbations . . . Although vast areas have been cleared
in the Southeast for agriculture, industry, and urban use, there is virtually no assessment of the
landscape effects of land conversion on amphibian populations. It seems evident, however, that
habitat changes (see papers in Hackney et al. 1992, Boyce and Martin 1993), and with them
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 588

 changes in aquatic amphibian populations, have been enormous” (p. 177-8).
Habitat loss and degradation obviously negatively affects amphibian populations. LaClaire (1997)
states: “There is a growing body of work documenting (amphibian) population declines on sites
where habitats have been degraded or destroyed (Vickers et al. 1985, Enge and Marion 1986, Ash
1988, Dodd 1991, Raymond and Hardy 1991, Petranka et al. 1993, Phelps and Lancia 1995,
Means et al. 1996). . . Clearly, when the habitat of a given population is destroyed, that population
has gone or will shortly go extinct. Many species may be unable to recolonize areas after local
extinctions, especially when unsuitable habitat exists between the extinct population and extant
populations” (p. 325-326).
Habitat fragmentation can lead to amphibian population extirpation by disrupting metapopulation
dynamics and preventing dispersal and rescue between source and sink habitat. Dodd (1997)
states: “Land use patterns resulting in fragmentation can influence amphibian population genetic
structure . . . if populations become overly fragmented, emigration and immigration may be
inhibited or stopped, thus preventing recolonization from source populations. . . Small isolated
populations are particularly susceptible to environmental perturbations and to stochastic variation
in demography that can lead to extinction even without external perturbations. Isolation by habitat
fragmentation thus becomes a threat to the regional persistence of species” (p. 178).
Logging is a potential threat if it leads to decreased water quality or reduced input of external
nutrients into Blind Salamander habitat (Dodd 1997, LaClaire 1997).
Aquatic amphibian populations are threatened by habitat destruction and water pollution from coal
mining activities in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and by
phosphate mining in Florida (Wallace et al. 1992, LaClaire 2007). Dodd (1997) states: “In many
instances, mining occurs directly through small streams or ponds, and mine tailings are pushed
into the larger rivers. . . Mining not only destroys aquatic amphibian habitats outright, it also
results in toxic pollution, decreased pH, and siltation of streams and rivers” (p. 180). Gore (1983)
showed that low pH and high conductivity due to mining negatively affect the distribution of
larval Desmognathus salamanders in streams on the Cumberland Plateau (in Dodd 1997).
Overutilization:
NatureServe (2008) states that "over-collecting for science or by herp enthusiasts" is a potential
threat to this species. AmphibiaWeb (2009) states that "heavy collecting" of this species has
occurred in one or two locations. Amphibians are collected from the wild for use as food, pets,
and for the biological and medicinal supply markets (AmphibiaWeb 2009:
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/exploitation.html). Dodd (1997) states: “Collecting specimens
for the pet trade or biological laboratories probably has had some impact on local (Southeast)
amphibian populations, but few data are available” (p. 183).
Disease or predation:
New diseases and increased susceptibility of amphibians to existing diseases are known to be
contributing to the decline of amphibian species (Blaustein et al. 1994, Laurance et al. 1996,
Berger et al. 1998, Daszak 2000, Kiesecker et al. 2001, reviewed in AmphibiaWeb 2009
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/diseases.html). Stress from factors such as habitat loss and
fragmentation, chemical pollution, climate change, invasion of exotic species, increased UV-B
radiation, and natural population fluctuations may increase the susceptibility of amphibians to
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 589

 disease (Carey 1993, Dodd 1997, Fellers et al. 2001, Kiesecker at al. 2001, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Pathogens known to cause infectious disease in amphibians include bacterial, fungal, viral,
metazoan, water mold, and trematode agents (Wright and Whitaker 2001 in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), has had severe impacts on
amphibian populations worldwide. Chytrid fungus is known to be present in the southeastern U.S.
(AmphibiaWeb 2009) and thus poses a potential threat to this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The Georgia Blind Salamander is a threatened species in Georgia and is a species of special
concern in Florida. These state designations do not provide this species with substantial regulatory
protection. There are two occurences of this species on managed areas in Florida, but these
management areas may not overlie entire aquifiers/occurrences, and NatureServe (2008) reports
that few to no occurences of this salamander are appropriately protected. The caves in Marianna
Caverns State Park have habitat protection, but are potentially vulnerable to recreational impacts.
NatureServe (2008) recommends protecting from all disturbance all inhabited caves as well as
protecting the ground surface above the entire cave system, and limiting pollution and water table
fluctuations. Additional recommendations include limiting human entrance into caves with signs
and fencing and protecting associated bat populations.
Other factors:
The Georgia Blind Salamander is threatened by factors which degrade water quality, such as runoff,
siltation, and pollutants, and by water level fluctuations from human use (NatureServe 2008) and
potentially from drought and climate change.
Dodd (1997) lists rarity as a threat to the Georgia Blind Salamander.
The Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission Natural Areas Inventory (2001) cites pollution
from agricultural chemicals and vandalism as threats to this species
(http://myfwc.com/docs/FWCG/Georgia_BLind_sal.pdf). The Commission also cites recreation
and solid waste as threats to the cave habitats with which this species is associated
(http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Terrestrial_Cave.pdf).
Florida’s karst biota are threatened by competition and predation from nonindigenous species
(Walsh 2001).
Because this salamander commonly occurs in pools where bats defecate, loss of bat populations
also potentially threatens this species (NatureServe 2008).
On threats to cave-dwelling organisms, Scott (2004) states: “Subterranean ecosystems, aquatic and
terrestrial, are extremely delicate environments with stable, constant temperatures, humidity, air
circulation patterns, chemical characteristics, and detrital inputs. Even minor perturbative events
can result in large kills of cave fauna. Threats include agricultural, industrial, and residential
pollutants, especially pesticides and herbicides (which may simply leach through soils); erosion
and siltation caused by destruction of vegetation at sink perimeters; changes in detrital input;
pumping of water; collection of fauna; invasive exotic species; and disturbance of fauna or nutrient
reserves by spelunkers and divers. Humans have slaughtered entire bat colonies in some caves and
caused partial or total abandonment of others, depleting the guano that supplies important

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 590

 nourishment for many cave invertebrates. Degradation of surface habitats may also threaten cave
fauna” (p. 77).
Other factors which threaten imperiled amphibian populations in the Southeast include water
pollution from acidification, toxins, and endocrine disrupting chemicals, reduced prey availability,
climate change, invasive species, and synergistic effects from these and other threats.
Acidification of soils and water bodies is detrimental for amphibians. Acidification of amphibian
habitat can result from acid precipitation and from acid mine drainage. Acid disrupts ion balance in
both terrestrial and aquatic lifestages of amphibians, impairs chemosensory reception, and inhibits
larval feeding (Dodd 1997). Embryos and larvae are particularly sensitive to decreased pH.
Terrestrial salamanders avoid acidified soils. Acidification also has indirect effects which can kill
embryos, larvae, and adults by interfering with egg development, disrupting trophic interactions,
and inducing chronic environmental stress. Low pH also makes amphibians more susceptible to
deleterious effects from heavy metals and increased UV-B radiation (Dodd 1997).
Environmental toxins pose a threat to amphibians in the Southeast due to lethal and sub-lethal
effects which can include mortality, decreased growth rate, behavioral and developmental
abnormalities, lowered reproductive success, weakened immunity, and hermaphroditism (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to toxic
substances because of the permeable nature of their skin. A wide range of chemical stressors are
known to negatively affect amphibians including heavy metals, pesticides, phenols, carbon
tetrachloride, nitrogen based fertilizers, and road salt (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009). The
presence of toxins can also make amphibians more susceptible to disease (Dodd 1997).
Amphibians are also threatened by endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment (eg. Hayes
et al. 2006). Dodd (1997) states: “Amphibians are likely to be especially sensitive to the action of
endocrine mimics because they are in close direct contact with chemicals in their environment,
and the amphibian skin and egg capsule are highly permeable. Because hormones normally
function in minute quantities and are vital to normal development, susceptibility to xenobiotics
could be devastating during the complex changes that occur during hormonally-induced amphibian
metamorphosis” (p. 182).
Toxins and other chemicals can also harm amphibians by reducing food availability. Dodd (1997)
states: “If species that are preyed upon by amphibians decline or disappear, amphibian populations
may be expected to follow suit. The use of pesticides and the influence of toxics, pH, and habitat
alteration all may be expected to affect amphibian prey populations” (p. 184).
Climate change poses a threat for amphibians because it will alter rainfall and temperature patterns
and affect soil moisture (Dodd 1997, Field et al. 2007). Amphibians are particularly sensitive to
minute changes in moisture and temperature, and changes in climate can affect breeding behavior,
reproductive success, and immune function (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ClimateChange.html). Amphibians which breed in temporary
ponds or in water bodies that are sensitive to changes in groundwater level are particularly
susceptible to climate change effects. Drought can lead to localized extirpation, which combined
with habitat fragmentation and impaired dispersal, can contribute to extinction (Dodd 1997).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 591

 Southeastern amphibians are also threatened by the invasion of non-native species which prey on
or compete with native amphibians.
Nonnative fishes can negatively affect amphibian populations through predation, competition, and
disease introduction. Introduced nonnative amphibians such as the marine toad (Bufo marinus) and
Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) are potentially harmful for native amphibians in the
Southeast. Rossi (1981) found that anuran species richness was reduced in an area where B.
marinus was established (in Dodd 1997). Introduced mammals, such as armadillos and wild hogs,
and introduced birds like cattle egrets “may exact a substantial toll on amphibian populations”
(Dodd 1997). Invasive fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also a potential threat for Southeastern
amphibians. Dodd (1997) states: “Ground dwelling vertebrates are especially sensitive to this
ravenous predator, and fire ants have been reported to kill endangered Houston toads (Bufo
houstonensis) as they metamorphose. Fire ants are especially abundant in the moist perimeter
surrounding ponds and lakes, and they can float in mats across ponds from vegetation clump to
vegetation clump. Fire ants have few predators and have expanded their range throughout the
Southeast” (p. 183). See: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/IntroSp.html.
Synergisms between multiple threats could contribute to the extinction of Southeast amphibians.
Multiple factors acting together have both lethal and sublethal effects
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/synergisms.html). For example, increased UV-B radiation
increases the susceptibility of amphibians to the effects of contaminants, pathogens and climate
change. Dodd (1997): “The amphibians of this area (the Southeast), and particularly the fully
aquatic species, face a multitude of threats to their long-term existence. These threats generally do
not act independently, but instead act in concert to have potentially serious long-term effects” (p.
185).
References:
Amphibiaweb. 2009. University of California, Berkeley. http://amphibiaweb.org/
Conant, R. and J. T. Collins. 1991. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central
North America. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 450 pp.
Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1997. Imperiled amphibians: a historical persective. Pp. 165–200. In Benz, G.W.
and D.E. Collins (Eds.), Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication Number 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications,
Decatur, Georgia.
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission Natural Areas Inventory. 2001. Georgia Blind
Salamander. http://myfwc.com/docs/FWCG/Georgia_BLind_sal.pdf.
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Terrestrial Cave.
http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Terrestrial_Cave.pdf.
LaClaire, L.V. 1997. Amphibians in Peril: Resource Management in the Southeast. p. 307-321
In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern
Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and
Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 592

 Means, D. B. 2005. Haideotriton wallacei Carr, 1939. Georgia blind salamander. Pages 779-780
in M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Scott, C. 2004. Endangered and threatened animals of Florida and their habitats. Austin:
University of Texas Press. 315 pp.
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater Macrofauna of Florida Karst Habitats. In Eve L. Kuniansky, editor,
2001, U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group
Proceedings, Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011, p. 78-88
http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/kigconference/sjw_freshwater.htm

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 593

 Scientific Name:
Hamiota australis
Common Name:
Southern Sandshell
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NE - Not evaluated

Range:
The Southern Sandshell occurs in the Escambia River drainage in Alabama, and the Yellow and
Choctawhatchee River drainages in Alabama and Florida (Blalock-Herod et al. 2002). The
historical range of this mussel was recently expanded (Williams et al. 2000, Blalock-Herod et al.
2002, 2005). In the Escambia River basin in Alabama, this mussel is known from the main channel
of the Conecuh River in Covington, Crenshaw, and Pike Counties, from Burnt Corn Creek in
Escambia County, from the Sepulga River in Conecuh County, and from Little Patsaliga Creek in
Crenshaw County. In the Yellow River drainage, this mussel is known from the main stem of the
Yellow River in Covington County, Alabama. From the Choctawhatchee River drainage in Florida,
this mussel is known from Alligator Creek in Washington County, from Holmes and Tenmile
Creeks in Holmes County, from Limestone Creek in Walton County, and from the main stem of
the Choctawhatchee in Holmes County. From the Choctawhatchee drainage in Alabama, it is
known from the Choctawhatchee main stem in Dale, Geneva, and Houston counties, from the Pea
River in Barbour, Coffee, and Dale counties, from the East Fork Choctawhatchee in Dale and
Henry Counties, from the West Fork Choctawhatchee in Barbour and Dale counties, from the
Little Choctawhatchee in Dale and Houston counties, from Whitewater Creek in Coffee County,
from Pea Creek in Dale County, and from another Pea Creek in Barbour County (Williams et al.
2000, Blalock-Herod et al. 2002, 2005).
Habitat:
This mussel is found in slow to moderate current in sandy substrate in clear, medium-sized creeks
to rivers (Deyrup and Franz 1994, Williams and Butler 1994).
Ecology:
This mussel often occurs syntopically with Ptychobranchus jonesi, but H. australis occurs more
often in smaller streams than P. jonesi (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Blalock-Herod et al. (2005) detected this mussel at 4 of 16 historical sites and at 15 new sites in
the Choctawhatchee River drainage of Alabama and Florida including the West Fork
Choctawhatchee River, Eightmile Creek, Yellow River, East Fork Choctawhatchee River, and
Jordan Creek. This mussel remains widespread but fragmented in the Choctawhatchee River and
many of its tributaries, but it appears to be declining in many areas. From the Escambia and
Yellow River drainages, there are few recent records (Williams et al. 2008). In the Escambia
basin, the sandshell has declined from 7 historic sites to 3 currently active sites and one site
where its status is unknown. In the Yellow River basin, it has declined from 9 historic sites to 8
currently active sites. In the Choctawhatchee River basin, the sandshell has declined from 35
historic sites to 19 currently active sites (Blalock-Herod et al. 2002) and 4 sites with unknown
population status. Overall this mussel has declined from a total of 51 historic sites to 30 active
sites and 5 sites with unknown status. The Southern Sandshell is now extirpated from
approximately 31-41 percent of its historic range.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 594

 At the best known location in 1988, roughly one dozer per hour were detected. Florida
populations are modest. Williams et al. (2000) consider its abundance to be low in the Escambia
and Yellow River systems. In recent surveys an average of 2 -3 live animals per site were detected
(fide Williams et al. unpublished data; Blalock-Herod et al. unpublished data cited in NatureServe
2008). In the Choctawhatchee drainage, only two sites were encountered which supported at least
20-30 individuals (Blalock-Herod et al. 2002). Gravid females were detected in these two larger
populations, and low levels of recruitment are likely occurring, but no juveniles were detected.
Other populations may no longer be viable (USFWS 2003).
Population Trends:
This mussel is declining in the short-term (10-30 percent), and has experienced a long-term
decline of 25-50 percent. It is extirpated from 31-41 percent of its historic range (FWS 2003). In
the Choctawhatchee drainage, it is reduced 75 percent from its historic distribution, but has been
recently detected at a few new sites in recent surveys (Blalock-Herod et al. 2002, 2005). It has
been extirpated from multiple historic occurrences in the Pea, Escambia, and Yellow rivers, but
has been found at a few new sites in these systems.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Southern Sandshell as critically imperiled in Alabama and not
ranked in Florida. This mussel is restricted to three river drainage basins where it occurs at
extremely low abundance at all but a few sites (NatureServe 2008). It is a federal candidate for
ESA protection. Its rank is being changed from threatened (Williams et al. 1993) to endangered
(2010 draft, in review) by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that habitat loss and degradation is the primary threat to this species,
from a variety of sources. The Southern Sandshell is thought to be highly sensitive to siltation and
habitat modification and to require stable substrate and clean water. Because it produces a
superconglutinate lure to attract host fish, it requires clear water to complete its life cycle. Its
habitat is threatened by runoff from agricultural and silvicultural activities, gravel and sand mining,
industrial and municipal pollution, development, and livestock grazing (NatureServe 2008). In
southern Alabama, it is threatened by pollution from the growing poultry farm industry. It is
threatened by oil and gas operation in the Escambia drainage. This mussel is also threatened by
impoundment. In the Choctawhatchee river system alone, there are about two dozen proposed
impoundments (Blalock et al. 1998). Blalock-Herod et al. (2002) report that increased turbidity
in the waterways where this mussel occurs may reduce the efficiency of superconglutinates to
attract host species or delay attraction time to the lures, interfering with reproduction.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The Southern Sandshell was listed as a federal candidate in 2004, but this listing provides the
species with no meaningful protection. There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect
this declining mussel.
Other factors:
This mussel is threatened by stochastic genetic and environmental events due to its distribution in
generally small and isolated populations. Some populations may no longer be of effective size to
be reproductively viable. It is threatened by any factor which threatens the host fish on which it
depends for reproduction. It is also potentially threatened by invasive species such as the Asiatic
clam, zebra mussel, and black carp (FWS 2003).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 595

 References:
Blalock, H.N., J.J. Herod, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Freshwater mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of
the Pea River Watershed of Alabama and Florida. Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 61 pp.
Blalock-Herod, H.N., J.J. Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2002. Evaluation of conservation status,
distribution, and reproductive characteristics of an endemic Gulf Coast freshwater mussel,
Lampsilis australis (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Biodiversity and Conservation, 11: 1877-1887.
Blalock-Herod, H.N., J.J. Herod, J.D. Williams, B.N. Wilson, and S.W. McGregor. 2005. A
historical and current perspective of the freshwater mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from the
Choctawhatchee River drainage in Alabama and Florida. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of
Natural History, 24: 1-26.
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Pilarczyk, M.M., P.M. Stewart, D.N. Shelton, H.N. Blalock-Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2006.
Current and Recent historical freshwater mussel assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains.
Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2): 205-226.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Candidate and listing priority assignment form:
Fusconaia rotulata, Ptychobranchus jonesi, Fusconaia escambia, Lampsilis australis, Pleurobema
strodeanum, Villosa choctawensis, Quincuncina burkei. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama
City Field Office, Panama. 20 pp.
Williams, J.D. and R.S. Butler. 1994. Class Bivalvia, Order Unionoida, freshwater bivalves.
Pages 53-128, 740-742 in M. Deyrup and R. Frantz (eds.) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
Volume 4. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Williams, J.D., H.N. Blalock, A. Benson, and D.N. Shelton. 2000. Distribution of the freshwater
mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae and Unionidae) in the Escambia and Yellow river
drainages in southern Alabama and western Florida. Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 61 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 596

 Scientific Name:
Hartwrightia floridana
Common Name:
Hartwrightia
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This plant is endemic to a small range in Florida and Georgia. It has been recently confirmed in
Nassau, Clay, Putnam, Alachua, Polk, Highlands, and Volusia Counties, Florida, and in Camden,
Charlton and Ware Counties, Georgia (NatureServe 2008, Patrick et al. 1995).
Habitat:
Hartwrightia occurs in wet substrates that are usually sphagnous or peat-enriched and sometimes
sandy (FNA 2006). It generally prefers full sunlight or only partial shade. It is most often found in
slash pine (Pinus elliotti) or longleaf pine (P. palustris), saw palmetto (Seronoa repens), gallberry (Ilex
spp.), or titi (Cyrilla racemiflora) flatwoods, acidic seepages, or pineland swamps or bogs (Kral 1983).
Its habitat is at least partially maintained by fire, which eliminates competing shrub or grass species.
Ecology:
This perennial plant reaches 1.2 m in height. It blooms September-November, and fruits OctoberDecember (Patrick et al. 1995).
Populations:
There are currently approximately 50 known occurrences in Florida and eight in Georgia
(NatureServe 2008, Chafin 2007). Population size is not known.
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this species.
Status:
Hartwrightia is restricted to a small range where it is threatened by extensive and systematic
habitat destruction. NatureServe (2008) ranks H. floridana as critically imperiled in Georgia and
imperiled in Florida.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss is the primary threat to H. floridana: much of this species' habitat has been
systematically converted to grazing lands or pine plantations (NatureServe 2008). Livestock
razing may damage individuals and/or habitat (Chafin 2000). Residential development also poses a
significant threat. Drainage, ditch construction, and other hydrological alterations degrade or
destroy habitat, and fire suppression has also played a role in the decline of this species as it
alters natural patterns of succession and facilitates canopy closure (Patrick et al. 1995, Chafin
2000, 2007).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect Hartwrightia or its habitat; though it is
listed as endangered in both Alabama and Florida, this designation offers it no substantial
regulatory protections.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 597

 References:
Chafin, L. G. 2000. Field guide to the rare plants of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory,
Tallahassee.
Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia.
Cronquist, A. 1981. An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. Columbia Univ.
Press, New York. 1262 pp.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2006c. Flora of North America North of Mexico.
Vol. 21. Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, part 8: Asteraceae, part 3. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
xxii + 616 pp.
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United
States: Dicotyledons. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
October 5, 2009).
Patrick, T., Allison, J., and R. Krakow. 1995. Protected Plants of Georgia, Georgia Department
of Natural Resources.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 598

 Scientific Name:
Helianthus occidentalis ssp. plantagineus
Common Name:
Shinner's Sunflower
G Rank:
T2
Range:
The fewleaf sunflower is restricted to a small area within east Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
Current natural heritage records exist for Perry County, Arkansas, Austin, Caldwell, Colorado,
DeWitt, Lavaca, Lee, and Newton Counties, Texas, and for Caddo, Lincoln, and Beauregard
Counties, Louisiana (NatureServe 2008, USDA Plant database 2009).
Habitat:
The sunflower grows in thin sandy soil on top of clay, often in claypan savannas with post oak
(Quercus stellata) and blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), or upland sandstone woods. It is
occasionally found in high quality cobble bars or terraces in mountain streams (NatureServe
2008).
Ecology:
This plant is perennial (Cronquist 1980).
Populations:
Roughly five populations of this sunflower are known in Arkansas, and between 10 and 15 are
known in Texas. Reports from Louisiana need verification (NatureServe 2008). Population sizes
have not been not reported.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) determined that this species is experiencing moderate decline as urbanization
expands into historic habitat.
Status:
Restricted to a relatively small range within which it is infrequently reported, this species is
threatened by habitat loss. NatureServe (2008) ranks H. occidentalis ssp. Plantagineus as
critically imperiled in Arkansas and Louisiana, and imperiled in Texas.
Habitat destruction:
Urbanization is a substantial threat to this species' habitat, particularly in Texas (NatureServe
2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.
References:
Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States. Vol. 1. Asteraceae. Univ.
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 261 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 25, 2010)
Smith, E.B. 1988. An atlas and annotated list of the vascular plants of Arkansas. Second edition.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 599

 Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville. 489 pp.
USDA Plant database. 2009. Louisiana county-level distribution of Helianthus occidentalis ssp.
plantagineus. Accessed online January 28, 2010
<<http://plants.usda.gov/java/county?state_name=Louisiana&statefips=22&symbol=HEOCP>>

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 600

 Scientific Name:
Hexastylis speciosa
Common Name:
Harper's Heartleaf
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Harper's heartleaf is known from only Chilton, Autauga, and Elmore counties in Alabama
(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant is found in open pine-deciduous woodlands and alluvial swamps in shaded habitat, and
prefers well-drained sandy loam soils, often establishing above acidic streams or bogs (FNA
1997, Blomquist 1957).
Ecology:
Harper's heartleaf is low-growing, perennial, and evergreen, and blooms during April and May
(NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Number of occurrences and total population size are unknown for this rare plant.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that H. speciosa is experiencing substantial declines, primarily as a
result of habitat loss.
Status:
Harper's heartleaf is endemic to a small range comprised of just 3 counties in Alabama, is in
decline, and is threatened by extensive habitat loss and invasive exotics. NatureServe (2008) ranks
H. speciosa as imperiled.
Habitat destruction:
Harper's heartleaf is threatened by the loss of habitat to residential development and timber
harvesting, which both destroy and fragment habitat (Southern Appalachian Sepcies Viability
Project 2002).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that few occurrences of this species are appropriately protected. It is
not protected by the state of Alabama.
Other factors:
Invasive exotics, such as kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) threaten H. speciosa across much of its range: these fast-growing non-natives
outcompete native plant life and may cause local or regional extirpations (Southern Appalachian
Species Viability Project 2002).
References:
Blomquist, H.L. 1957. A revision of Hexastylis of North America. Brittonia 8(4): 255-281.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1997. Flora of North America north of Mexico.
Vol. 3. Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiii +
590 pp.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 601

 NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
October 5, 2009).
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 602

 Scientific Name:
Hobbseus cristatus
Common Name:
Crested Riverlet Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
According to NatureServe (2008), the Crested Riverlet crayfish has a range of 250-5000 square
km (about 100-2000 square miles). It is known from four sites in the Tombigbee River basin in
Kemper, Lauderdale, Lowndes, and Noxubee counties, Mississippi (Hobbs 1989).
Habitat:
According to Adams (2008), "Most of the H. cristatus were collected from roadside ditches with
shallow (less than 0.3 m), turbid water, and some were from “sluggish” portions of streams or
simple burrows (about 0.3 – 0.5 m deep). All those collected from the water were in grass and or
accumulations of detritus on clay substrate. The species is probably a secondary burrower (Hobbs
1955)."
Populations:
This species has only been collected once since 1957 with all other occurrences documented as
historical (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
In the short term, NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is very rapidly declining (decline
of 50-70 percent). In the long term, a large decline is noted (75-90 percent).
Status:
Hobbseus cristatus is restricted to a single river drainage in a four county area. It is ranked as
imperiled by NatureServe (2008), as a Tier 1 species of greatest conservation need by the state of
Mississippi, and as vulnerable by the IUCN. It is ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries
Society.
Habitat destruction:
The reasons for the large decline of this species are unknown, but NatureServe (2008) reports that
it is likely to be undergoing localized declines in areas of urbanization due to alteration to the
hydrological regime, water pollution, and the paving of roadside ditches.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Part of the range of the Crested Riverlet crayfish is in the Tombigbee National Forest, but this
provides no regulatory protection for the species or its habitat.
References:
Adams, S. B. 2008. Hobbseus cristatus fact sheet. Version 1.0. USDA Forest Service, Crayfishes
of Mississippi website. Available online at maps.fs.fed.us/crayfish/factsheets/FS0048.pdf. Last
accessed April 28, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 603

 Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1955. A new crayfish of the genus Cambarus from Mississippi. Proceedings of
the Biological Society of Washington 68:95-100.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 604

 Scientific Name:
Hobbseus orconectoides
Common Name:
Oktibbeha Riverlet Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Hobbseus orconectoides has a range of less than 100 square km (less than about 40 square miles)
according to NatureServe (2009). Most records are historical with few substantiated recent
occurrences. The type locality was lost to development. It is known from the Sand Creek drainage
in Oktibbeha, Lowndes, and Webster counties, Mississippi (Hobbs 1989).
Habitat:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Oktibbeha Riverlet crayfish can be found in lentic situations
such as wodland ponds, puddles, ditches, and also in lotic habitats such as moderately flowing
sand-bottomed streams (Fitzpatrick and Payne 1968). It is found in association with emergent
vegetation and littoral zones with abundant detritus (Fitzpatrick and Payne 1968). This species
burrows during the summer dry periods and is a secondary burrower (Hobbs 1989). It appears to
be reasonably tolerant of variable water quality conditions.
Populations:
NatureServe (2010) reports that there are fewer than five occurrences of this species, and that
abundance is unknown.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2010) reports that this species is very rapidly declining (decline of 50-70 percent)
in the short-term, stating: "Most records are from the late 1960's and much of the remaining
habitat in the Sand Creek drainage is uder intense development pressure associated with expanding
populations in Starkville and Columbus. The type locality is apparently gone (housing
development) and recent surveys found it in only one place (couple of specimens), after having
looked at most of the localities where it once occurred (several historic localities were in
roadside ditches which are now lined with concrete or otherwise dredged clean and smooth with
no crayfish) (MS NHP, pers. comm., January 2009)." Long-term decline is estimated at up to 90
percent.
Status:
NatureServe (2010) changed the status of this species from vulnerable to critically imperiled. The
State of Mississippi lists it as a Tier 1 Species of Immediate Conservation Need. This species
was a Federal C2 Candidate species before that list was abolished. It is ranked as threatened by the
American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2010) reports that this species is imminently threatened by habitat loss and
degradation, stating: "Development of regional airport area or growth of Mississippi State
University could imperil this species. Most records are from the late 1960's and much of the
remaining habitat in the Sand Creek drainage is uder intense development pressure associated with
expanding populations in Starkville and Columbus. The type locality is apparently gone (housing
development) and recent surveys found it in only one place (couple of specimens), after having

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 605

 looked at most of the localities where it once occurred (several historic localities were in
roadside ditches which are now lined with concrete or otherwise dredged clean and smooth with
no crayfish) (MS NHP, pers. comm., January 2009)."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2010) reports that no occurrences of this species are protected.
References:
Adams, S. B. 2008. Hobbseus orconectoides. USDA Forest Service, Crayfishes of Mississippi
website, Oxford, MS. Available online at http://maps.fs.fed.us/crayfish/factsheets/FS0065.pdf.
Last accessed November 18, 2009.
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. and J. F. Payne. 1968. A new genus and species of crawfish from the
southeastern United States (Decapoda, Astacidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington 81:11-21.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 606

 Scientific Name:
Hobbseus petilus
Common Name:
Tombigbee Riverlet Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
According to NatureServe (2008) the Tombigbee Riverlet crayfish is endemic to Mississippi,
occurring in Itawamba, Lee, Monroe, and Oktibbeha Counties (Hobbs, 1989; Fitzpatrick, 1977;
1996; 2002). Fitzpatrick (2002) also reported the species from Clay County, Mississippi, but the
location of voucher specimens from that county is unknown.
Habitat:
H. petilus occupies slow to moderately flowing small shallow streams with silty bottoms and
emergent vegetation (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) roughly estimates that there are 21 - 80 populations with 2500-10,000
individuals. Precise population data is lacking. The species is common within its limited range.
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled. The State of Mississippi has classified this
species as a Tier 1 Species in need of Immediate Conservation Action. It is ranked as vulnerable
by the IUCN and as threatened by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
The potential impact of the Tenn-Tom Waterway on the habitat of Hobbseus petilus is great. Its
headwaters location makes it espescially vulnerable to early effects (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2010) reports that it is unknown whether any occurrences are appropriately
protected and managed.
References:
Adams, S. B. 2008. Hobbseus petilus. USDA Forest Service, Crayfishes of Mississippi website,
Oxford, MS. Available online at http://maps.fs.fed.us/crayfish/factsheets/FS0066.pdf. Last
accessed November 18, 2009.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 607

 Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Jones, R. L. (83017). 1983. Eight specimens, Accession No. 1731, MMNS.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Susan B. Adams, Ph.D., Research Aquatic Ecologist, US Forest Service Southern Research
Station, Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research
1000 Front St. Oxford, MS 38655 phone: (662) 234-2744 ext. 267
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 608

 Scientific Name:
Hobbseus yalobushensis
Common Name:
Yalobusha Riverlet Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
This species occurs in the headwaters of the Yalobusha River (Yazoo River system) in Calhaun,
Chickasaw and Webster Counties, Mississippi (Fitzpatrick and Busack, 1989; USFS, 2009).
Fitzpatrick (2002) also reported the species from Attala and Choctaw counties, Mississippi, but
the locations of voucher specimens from those counties are unknown (NatureServe 2010).
Habitat:
Hobbseus yalobushensis is found in restricted to small headwater streams in the upper Yazoo
River system, with silty bottoms and emergent vegetation (NatureServe 2008). The type locality
was a shaded stream reach, 1 - 2 m wide and up to 0.7 m deep, flowing slowly through agricultural
land. The type specimens were collected by dipnet on bare clay with some leaf litter nearby.
Ecology:
Adams (2008) reports that Fitzpatrick and Busack (1989) collected specimens in streams from
February to June, which suggests that the species is not a primary burrower.
Populations:
NatureServe (2010) estimates 6-20 occurrences of this species, stating: "A wider range of
localities than indicated by type series was once thought to be probable but most collections are
from over 20 years ago and he species is no longer present in the type locality and was recently
found to be absent from several previously known localities (MS NHP, pers. comm., January
2009)."
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2010) estimates that this species is rapidly declining to stable (10 percent
fluctuation to 50 percent decline). It has been extirpated from the type locality and from several other
previously known localities (MS NHP, pers. comm., January 2009 cited in NatureServe 2010).
Status:
This crayfish is ranked as imperiled by NatureServe (2008). It is a Tier 1 Species in Need of
Immediate Conservation Action in Mississippi. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as
Endangered by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
According to Taylor et al. (2007), "[h]abitat alteration, such as stream channelization and substrate
removal can negatively impact crayfishes. Channelization and high erosion rates at the typelocality for the Yalobusha riverlet crayfish (Hobbseus yalobushensis) … may have contributed to
its extirpation at the site."
This crayfish occurs in a very rural area. NatureServe (2010) reports that channelization, headcutting, and loss of riparian strips are all potential threats but none are imminent, though this

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 609

 species is known to have been extirpated from several sites.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2010) reports that no occurrences of this species are appropriately protected and
managed.
References:
Adams, S. B. 2008. Hobbseus yalobushensis. USDA Forest Service, Crayfishes of Mississippi
website, Oxford, MS. Available online at http://maps.fs.fed.us/crayfish/factsheets/FS0068.pdf.
Last accessed November 18, 2009.
Fitzpatrick, J. F., Jr. 1996. Rare and endangered crawfishes of Mississippi. Museum Technical
Report No. 93, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Parks, Jackson.
Fitzpatrick, J. F., Jr. and C. A. Busack. 1989. Hobbseus yalobushensis, a new crawfish from
central Mississippi. (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington. 102(3):637-643. 1 figure, 1 table.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 610

 Scientific Name:
Hydroptila okaloosa
Common Name:
Rogue Creek Hydroptila Caddisfly
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This caddisfly is only known from Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This caddisfly is dependent on clean creeks.
Populations:
This species is only known from three creeks in Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (Rasmussen 2006).
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown for this rare species.
Status:
This caddisfly is critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
Because it is dependent on clean water, this caddisfly is threatened by any form of pollution,
siltation or degradation of surrounding habitat (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species occurs on Eglin Air Force Base in the Florida Panhandle (NatureServe 2008). It is
unknown if it is appropriately protected from activities what would degrade water quality and
eliminate the species.
References:
Clemson University Department of Entomology (J.C. Morse, ed.). 2002. Last Updated 5
September 2006. Trichoptera World Checklist. Online. Available:
http://entweb.clemson.edu/database/trichopt/index.htm.
Harris, S.C. 2002. New species of microcaddisflies (Trichoptera: Hydroptilidae) from northern
Florida. Annals of Carnegie Museum, 71(1): 47-57.
Rasmussen, A.K. 2006. Caddisfly (Insecta: Trichoptera) records from the Florida A&M
University database.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 611

 Scientific Name:
Hydroptila sarahae
Common Name:
Sarah's Hydroptila Caddisfly
G Rank:
G1
Range:
There are four known occurrences of Hydroptila sarahae within approximately 500 square
kilometers in Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This caddisfly is dependent on clean creeks.
Populations:
There are four known occurrences of this species, all are in Eglin Air Force Base (NatureServe
2008).
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown for this rare species.
Status:
This species is critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that anything that adversely affects water quality, such as pollution,
siltation or degradation of surrounding habitat would be a threat to this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species occurs only on Eglin Air Force Base (NatureServe 2008). It is unknown if it is
appropriately protected from activities what would degrade water quality and eliminate the species.
References:
Clemson University Department of Entomology (J.C. Morse, ed.). 2002. Last Updated 5
September 2006. Trichoptera World Checklist. Online. Available:
http://entweb.clemson.edu/database/trichopt/index.htm.
Harris, S.C. 2002. New species of microcaddisflies (Trichoptera: Hydroptilidae) from northern
Florida. Annals of Carnegie Museum, 71(1): 47-57.
Rasmussen, A.K. 2006. Caddisfly (Insecta: Trichoptera) records from the Florida A&M
University database.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 612

 Scientific Name:
Hydroptila sykorai
Common Name:
Sykora's Hydroptila Caddisfly
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This species is only known from one spring run (NatureServe 2008) with a total range less than
100 square km (less than about 40 square miles).
Populations:
H. sykorai is known from one spring run in Gadsden County, Florida, on the Florida Agricultural
and Mechanical University Farm (Rasmussen 2006). This caddisfly is known from only five
specimens (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This species is critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
This species is only known from the farm at Florida AMU and is threatened by pollution, siltation
or degradation of surrounding habitat (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this rare species.
References:
Clemson University Department of Entomology (J.C. Morse, ed.). 2002. Last Updated 5
September 2006. Trichoptera World Checklist. Online. Available:
http://entweb.clemson.edu/database/trichopt/index.htm.
Harris, S.C. 2002. New species of microcaddisflies (Trichoptera: Hydroptilidae) from northern
Florida. Annals of Carnegie Museum, 71(1): 47-57.
Rasmussen, A.K. 2006. Caddisfly (Insecta: Trichoptera) records from the Florida A&M
University database.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 613

 Scientific Name:
Hymenocallis henryae
Common Name:
Henry's Spider-lily
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Henry's spider-lily is endemic to a small range within the Florida panhandle. This species is
currently present in Bay, Gulf, Liberty, and Walton Counties, Florida (NatureServe 2008, FNA
2009).
Habitat:
This plant is found only within the narrow ecotone between dome swamps and wet flatwoods or
prairies, often in cypress depressions (Kral 1983, Smith and Flory 1990). It occurs in a variety of
soil types, and has been found in standing water, wet sandy peat soil, or dry soil (Smith and Flory
1990).
Ecology:
This plant is perennial, forms clumps, and reproduces both sexually and vegetatively (NatureServe
2008). It flowers during May and June (Smith and Flory 1990).
Populations:
At last survey, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory recorded 25 occurrences of this species
sporadically distributed throughout the south-central area of the Florida panhandle. Population
size data are not available (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that H. henryae is experiencing substantial declines across its already
small range.
Status:
The spider-lily is endemic to a small range within the Florida panhandle, and is in decline across
this range as a result of habitat loss or degradation. This species is a habitat specialist and
therefore highly sensitive to habitat loss. NatureServe (2008) reports that it is imperiled in
Florida, and the state also lists H. henryae as endangered.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss is the primary threat to this species: conversion of habitat to silvicultural plantations,
agricultural use, or residential development is widespread, and wetland drainage and fire
suppression also destroy or degrade habitat suitable for H. henryae (NatureServe 2008, Weekley
et al. 2008).
Overutilization:
Overcollection threatens some populations of this rare plant (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though occurrences on the Apalachicola National Forest are somewhat protected from habitat
destruction, specimens are still frequently collected (NatureServe 2008).
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species; though it is listed as
endangered in Florida, this designation affords H. henryae no substantial regulatory protections.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 614

 References:
Clewell, A.F. 1985. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida Panhandle. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville. 605 PP.
Flora of North America, Vol. 26. Species account for Hymenocallis henryae. Accessed online
December 16, 2009
<<http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242101678>>
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed
October 5, 2009.
Smith, G., and W. Flory. 1990. Studies on Hymenocallis henryae (Amaryllidaceae). Brittonia
42: 212-220.
Weekley, C., Gordon, D., Maguire, J., Maschinski, J., Menges, E., Pence, V., and C. Peterson.
2008. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Plant Conservation Grant Program. The Palmetto
25: 8-12.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 615

 Scientific Name:
Hypericum edisonianum
Common Name:
Edison's Ascyrum
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This plant is endemic to a small area in Florida's Lake Wales Ridge; natural heritage records show
presence in Polk, Highlands, Glades, and DeSoto Counties, though the species may be extirpated
from DeSoto County. Its range encompasses less than 100 square miles (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant occurs in sandy soils in low, wet prairies, pine flatwoods, and along the margins of
flatwood ponds or other water bodies (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). It grows amongst a diversity
of grasses, sedges, orchids, and palmetto (Sabal palmetto). Its preferred habitat is naturally firemaintained (Kral 1983).
Ecology:
Edison's ascyrum is a perennial shrub that is generally insect-pollinated (Cronquist 1981). Its
persistence in any given area is closely tied to the maintenance of natural hydrologic and fire
regimes (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory database contains 24 occurrence records in Florida as of
1997, the most recent survey (NatureServe 2008). Population size is unknown and is difficult to
estimate because the species spreads vegetatively, often forming dense colonies.
Population Trends:
Populations across this species' already-small range are in decline (NatureServe 2008)
Status:
This species is uncommon across its very narrow range, and remaining populations are rapidly
diminishing as a result of high development pressure and other anthropogenic threats.
NatureServe (2008) ranks the species as imperiled in Florida.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss is the principle threat to this species: anthropogenic changes in hydrological regime
and rapid and extensive land use change in the form of residential and agricultural development are
the forces responsible for the decline of this rare endemic plant (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Populations of this species on Archbold Biological Station are fairly well-protected, but across
the remainder of its range, no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Edison's
ascyrum. Though it is state listed as threatened in Florida, this designation offers it no substantial
regulatory protections.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 616

 References:
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United
States: Dicotyledons. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 3, 2009.
Ward, D.B. (ED). 1979. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. 5: Plants. University Press
of Florida, Gainesville.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 617

 Scientific Name:
Hypericum lissophloeus
Common Name:
Smooth-barked St. John's-wort
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This species occurs only in Bay and Washington Counties in Florida (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Very specific in its habitat preferences, this species is found along the fluctuating, sandy, moistto-wet shores of sinkhole ponds or small lakes. Plants are tolerant of temporary extremes of
inundation and exposure, and are generally found in full sun and acidic soils. It also grows in
longleaf pine-scrub oak sandhills in the Coastal Plain (Kral 1983). This plant is often found with
Kral's yellow-eyed grass (Xyris longisepala), quillwort yellow-eyed grass (X. isoetifolia), and
panhandle meadow beauty (Rhexia salicifolia)(NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Perennial and long-lived, this species forms dense thickets and may be the most abundant shrub in
some locations where it is found (Godfrey and Wooten 1981, Kral 1983).
Populations:
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory reported 35 occurrences as of 1997; more recent survey data
is not available (NatureServe 2008). Populations are reportedly large, but it has not been
determined whether these dense occurrences are composed of clones or genetic individuals.
Population Trends:
Population trend has not been reported for this species.
Status:
This species has very high habitat specificity, and preferred sites are naturally rare and
ecologically fragile. NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled. It is state-listed as
endangered in Florida.
Habitat destruction:
Ongoing lakeshore development is widespread in this species' range, and poses an immediate
threat to some populations (NatureServe 2008). Various activities, such as timber harvesting or
establishment of timber plantations, and agricultural, residential, or commercial development,
within the upland matrix that surrounds H. lissophloeus' shoreline habitat promote erosion,
pollution, and other habitat-degrading influences. The use of off road vehicles (ORVs) for
shoreline recreation presents a direct threat to some populations.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
One population is present on Eglin Air Force Base, and some occur on land owned by the
Northwest Florida Water Management District, and so are protected from direct threats, though
not more diffuse or widespread factors (NatureServe 2008). Though this species is listed as
endangered in Florida, this designation confers no substantial regulatory protection; no existing
regulatory mechanisms adequately protect H. lissophloeus.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 618

 References:
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United
States: Dicotyledons. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 22, 2010)
Wunderlin, R.P. 1982. Guide to the vascular plants of Central Florida. University Press.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 619

 Scientific Name:
Illicium parviflorum
Common Name:
Yellow Anisetree
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Though it was historically also present in Georgia, I. parviflorum is now thought to be restricted
to a few counties in Florida: natural heritage records exist for Lake, Marion, Orange, Polk,
Seminole, and Volusia Counties (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant occurs in moist sandy loams or sandy peat mucks in wetland hammocks and floodplain
swamps, often along large spring-fed streams. It is found with Atlantic white cedar,
Chamaecyparis thyoides, Florida leucothoe (Agarista populifolia), cabbage palmetto (Sabal
palmetto), dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor), needle palm (Rhapidophyllum hystrix), sweetbay
magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), and swamp bay (Persea palustris), sometimes on karst formations
(NatureServe 2008). This species is often an understory tree in floodplain forest, though it can
reach over 6 m in height.
Ecology:
This plant is perennial, long-lived, and restricted to moist soils (Godfrey 1986).
Populations:
As of 1997 this species was known from fewer than 20 occurrences in five Florida counties
(NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
This tree is in decline, and its range is contracting (historically present in Florida).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the yellow anise tree as imperiled in Florida, where it is also listed as
endangered.
Habitat destruction:
This species' habitat is threatened by a variety of human activities, including wetland drainage and
various timber management practices (Kral 1983).
Overutilization:
This tree is used for landscaping, and may be taken from the wild for cultivation (Kral 1983,
NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are two occurrences of this tree in Ocala National Forest, and it also found in Wekiwa
Springs State Park and DeLeon Springs State Recreation Area, though none of these occurrences
are appropriately protected or managed. Though it is listed as endangered in Florida, this
designation offers I. parviflorum no substantial regulatory protections; no existing regulatory
mechanisms adequately protect this species.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 620

 References:
Godfrey, R.K. 1988. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of northern Florida and adjacent Georgia
and Alabama. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 734 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 13, 2010)

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 621

 Scientific Name:
Io fluvialis
Common Name:
Spiny Riversnail
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
The total range of the Spiny Riversnail is less than 100-250 square km. This snail is endemic to
western Virginia and eastern Tennessee in the Tennessee River drainage and its main tributaries
including the Clinch, Powell, French Broad, Holston, and Nolichucky rivers (Burch 1989). This
snail once occurred in the Tennessee Rivery systems south to Muscle Shoals, Alabama, but was
extirpated in Alabama as the result of impoundment in the early 20th century (Ahlstedt 1991,
Mirarchi 2004). Reported occurences from Kentucky are erroneous (NatureServe 2008). There
are historical specimens from the Little Tennessee, Tellico, and West Prong Little Pigeon Rivers
in Tennessee where the species is no longer extant (Parmalee and Bogan 1987).
Habitat:
The Spiny Riversnail occurs in shallow water shoals with moderate to rapid flow and high
dissolved oxygen content.
Populations:
There are from 6-20 extant populations of the Spiny Riversnail (NatureServe 2008). Total
population size is unknown. Davis (1974 in NatureServe 2008) reported less than 28 occurrences
in three river drainages. Bogan and Parmalee (1983) reported that this species was restricted to
relict populations in the lower Nolichucky River and Powell River (Claiborne, Hancock, and Lee
counties, TN), and the Clinch River from Claiborne County, TN upstream to Lee County, Virginia.
The Riversnail has been reintroduced successfully into the lower North Fork Holston River at
two sites (Ahlstedt 1991) and into the tailwaters of Nickajack Dam in Marion County, TN
(Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Population Trends:
In the short term, the Spiny Riversnail has declined rapidly, from 30-50 percent. Over the long
term the species has experienced widespread declines of 75-90 percent (NatureServe 2008). As
of the mid-1970's, the number of extant sites was reported as 21 percent of historical locations
(Davis 1974).
Status:
The Spiny Riversnail is imperiled in Tennessee and Virginia and is presumed to be extirpated in
Alabama (NatureServe 2008). It is classified as Endangered by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
This species is a narrow endemic threatened by habitat alteration and changes in water quality
(NatureServe 2008). Part of its habitat has been destroyed by impoundment (Ahlstedt 1991,
Mirarchi 2004). EPA (1996) reports that agricultural runoff and livestock grazing is a serious
threat to aquatic species in this snail's habitat. EPA (2002) reports that coal mining activities and
agricultural practices, past and present, are having adverse impacts on stream habitats in the Clinch
and Powell watershed. This snail is sensitive to chemical pollution and populations were
documented as being threatened by chemical pollution before the turn of the 20th century (FWS

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 622

 1984). Virginia's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2006) cites siltation, dredging,
pollution, mining, water withdrawal, and impoundment as threats to aquatic species in the
Southern Cumberlands. This snail occurs within the potentially affected watershed of a proposed
industrial facility by the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company on the Tennessee River in Marion
County (TVA 2009). The Commonwealth of Virginia (2005) reports that the Clinch River is
threatened by declining water quality from coal mining and agricultural practices, by litter and
trash, and by development of second homes in remote areas. Part of this species habitat could be
affected by proposed developments at the Oak Ridge Reservation (U.S. DOE 2009). The spiny riversnail
is specifically threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005). Mountaintop removal can
fill in streams entirely and can cause significant downstream and groundwater pollution. Pollutants
associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota (Palmer et al. 2010).
Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates (Wood 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no occurrences of the Spiny Riversnail which are appropriately protected (NatureServe
2008) and there are no regulatory mechanisms in place to protect this snail. Pendleton Island on
the Clinch River in Virginia is owned by The Nature Conservancy, but is subject to outside
pollution. The North Fork of the Holston River harbors a successfully reintroduced population of
this species, and a propagation effort is being conducted (Ahlstedt 1991).
Other factors:
Any factor which leads to declines in water quality or alterations in hydrologic regime will
negatively impact the Spiny Riversnail. The North Fork of the Holston River has been severely
impacted by mercury releases (Stansberry and Clench 1975, Neves 1991 in Flebbe et al. 1996),
and much of this species' habiat has been polluted by coal mining and agriculture.
References:
Ahlstedt, S.A. 1991. Reintroduction of the spiny riversnail Io fluvialis (Say, 1825) (Gastropoda:
Pleuroceridae) into the north fork Holston River, southwest Virginia and northeast Tennessee.
American Malacological Bulletin 8(2):139-142.
Bogan, A.E. and P.W. Parmalee. 1983. Tennessee's rare wildlife. Vol. 2: The mollusks.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and the Tennessee Conservation Department. 123 pp.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Commonwealth of Virginia, Dept. of Conservation and Recreation. 2005. The Recreational
Development Potential of the Clinch River Valley in Russell County. House Document No. 106.
http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/By+Year/HD1062005/$file/HD106.pdf
Dillon, R.T., Jr. 1989. Karyotypic evolution in pleurocerid snails. I. Genomic DNA estimated by
flow cytometry. Malacologia, 31(1): 197-203.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Non-Point Source News Notes #46. CommunityBased Conservation on the Clinch Partners, Pearlymussels, and Patience.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/info/NewsNotes/pdf/46issue.pdf Last accessed Jan. 13, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 623

 Hinkley, A.A. 1906. Some shells from Mississippi and Alabama. The Nautilus, 20(3): 34; 20(4):
40-44; 20(5): 52-55.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1987. New prehistoric distribution records of Io fluvialis (Say,
1825) (Gastropoda, Pleuroceridae) in Tennessee with comments on form variation. Malacology
Data Net, 2(1/2): 42-54.
Stansbery, D.H.and W.J. Clench. 1974. The Pleuroceridae and Unionidae of the North Fork
Holston River above Saltville, Virginia. Bulletin of The American Malacological Union, Inc.,
May 1974: 33-35.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 2009. Final Environmental Assessment. Chicago Bridge and Iron
Company Marion County, Tennessee.
http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/chicago_bridge_iron/fea.pdf Last accessed January 12,
2010.
U.S. Dept. of Energy. 2009. Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement. Y-12 National Security
Complex.
http://www.gc.energy.gov/NEPA/documents/Chapter_4.pdf Accessed Jan. 13, 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2002). Clinch and Powell Valley watershed
ecological risk assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC;
EPA/600/R-01/050. Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
<http://www.epa.gov/ncea>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Recovery Plan for the Green-Blossom Pearly Mussel
Epioblasma (=Dysnomia) torulosa gubernaculum (Reeve, 1865). Prepared by
Steven Ahlstedt for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.
http://www.fws.gov/cookeville/recovery_plans/Green_Blossom_Pearly_1984.pdf
Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2006. Virginia's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy.
http://bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-action-plan/chapter-9.pdf Accessed Jan. 13, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 624

 Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 625

 Scientific Name:
Isoetes hyemalis
Common Name:
Winter Quillwort
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Also called the evergreen quillwort, this species is currently known in Virginia, North and South
Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and possibly Alabama. It is found primarily in the Coastal Plain, though
a few populations occur in the Piedmont region (Brunton et al. 1994). Natural heritage records
indicate I. hyemalis is present in Houston County, Alabama, in Miller and Seminole Counties,
Georgia, in Charlotte, Halifax, and Mecklenburg Counties, Virginia, ijn Holmes County, Florida,
in Brunswick, Harnett, Hoke, Orange, and Richmond Counties, North Carolina, and possibly in
Dorchester County, South Carolina (Wunderlin and Hansen 2002, Brunton et al. 1994,
NatureServe 2008). Many sites, however, have not been confirmed since the early to mid-1990s.
Habitat:
This plant most often occurs in shallow, running waters of creeks, sloughs, and rivershores. It is
found in dense shade beneath deciduous or mixed swamp forest. Species typical of this habitat
include bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), red maple (Acer rubrum), longleaf pine (Pinus
serotina), and American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). I. hyemalis generally grows in
single-species patches, but may occasionally be associated with other herbaceous plants. I.
hyemalis prefers fresh, cool, subacid-to-neutral flowing water (Brunton et al. 1994).
Ecology:
This plant is aquatic or amphibious, perennial, and spores mature in June-July (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
At least 20 occurrences of this species are extant-- 10 in North Carolina, at least 4 in Virginia,
and at least 2 each in South Carolina and Georgia, though surveys for this species have not been
extensive (NatureServe 2008). Population sizes are not well-documented.
Population Trends:
Population trends have not been reported for this species, but threats to its habitat suggest that
decline is occurring or imminent (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the winter quillwort as critically imperiled in Alabama, Georgia, South
Carolina, and Virginia and imperiled in North Carolina. Its status is under review in Florida, where
it is state listed as endangered.
Habitat destruction:
This species' habitat is threatened by residential development, logging, channelization and other
hydrological alterations (D. Brunton, pers. comm. as cited in NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is listed as endangered in Florida, this designation affords the winter quillwort no
significant regulatory protections; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 626

 species or its habitat.
References:
Brunton, D.F., D.M. Britton, and W.C. Taylor. 1994. Isoetes hyemalis, sp. nov. (Isoetaceae): A
new quillwort from the southeastern United States. Castanea 59(1): 12-21.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 13, 2010)
Wunderlin, R.P., and B.F. Hansen. 2002. Atlas of Florida vascular plants. University Press of
Florida, Tampa. 788pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 627

 Scientific Name:
Isoetes microvela
Common Name:
Thin-wall Quillwort
G Rank:
G1
Range:
Endemic to a small area of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, I. microvela is known only from Brunswick
County, Jones, Onslow, and Sampson Counties, North Carolina, though some of these reports may
not be current (Brunton and Britton 1998, NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The quillwort occurs along the banks of permanent streams on sandy alluvial soil, usually without
other vegetation present. Its preferred habitat is frequently affected by storm-related flooding. It
is most often found in areas of deep shade within deciduous swamp forests, associated with
calcareous substrate (Brunton and Britton 1998).
Ecology:
This plant is perennial.
Populations:
This species was known from roughly three populations in North Carolina as of 2004
(NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Because this species was described so recently, population trends are not reported (NatureServe
2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled.
Habitat destruction:
This species is threatened by any changes in local hydrology resulting from dams, diversions, or
other anthropogenic alterations. One population is threatened by recreational activities at a
campground (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.
Other factors:
Severe rainfall events threaten this species because its habitat preferences expose it to flood
scouring. Some populations were destroyed by post-hurricane flooding in 1996-1997
(NatureServe 2008). The frequency and intensity of severe storms is expected to increase in the
southeastern United States due to global climate change, magnifying the threat to this species.
References:
Brunton, D.F., and D.M. Britton. 1998. Isoetes microvela (Isoetaceae), a new quillwort from the
coastal plain of the southeastern United States. Rhodora 100:261-275.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1993. Flora of North America north of Mexico.
Vol. 2. Pteridophytes and gymnosperms. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xvi + 475 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 628

 Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds.). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the
United States. U.S. Global Change Research Program. Cambridge University Press. Available
online at: http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/usimpacts/regional-climate-change-impacts/southeast . Last accessed July 13, 2009.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
February 1, 2010)

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 629

 Scientific Name:
Kinosternon baurii pop. 1
Common Name:
Striped Mud Turtle - Lower Florida Keys
G Rank:
T2
Range:
The Lower Florida Keys Striped Mud Turtle, also known as the Key Mud Turtle, occurs in the
Lower Keys in Monroe County, including many islands from Big Pine Key to Key West
(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This turtle usually uses soft-bottomed temporary freshwater ponds, but also occurs in permanent
freshwaters and excavated mosquito control ditches that are fed by the freshwater table. It also
occurs in brackish water, up to 15 ppt. Suitable ponds are generally found in or along the edge of
elevated hardwood hammocks (Dunson 1992). Pondside vegetation is typically dominated by
buttonwood (Conocarpus), sometimes with red and black mangroves. At disturbed sites, cattail is
present (Dunson 1992). This turtle exhibits high site fidelity, with individuals rarely using more
than a single pond (Dunson 1992). If ponds dry or become too saline, turtles may use terrestrial
retreats, under rock ledges or among tree roots. Certain terrestrial retreats may be used
repeatedly (Dunson 1992). Eggs are deposited in nests excavated in sand or decaying vegetation
(NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
In suitable habitat, Key Mud Turtles may occur at high densities. The highest recorded density is
59 turtles in 52 sq m of mosquito control ditches (Dunson 1992). Alligators are known predators
(NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
It is estimated that there are from 6-20 populations of Key Mud Turtle (NatureServe 2008). Total
population size is unknown. The largest populations are thought to occur in patches of especially
favorable habitat on some of the smaller islands. On Summerland Key, it is estimated that a
population of several hundred turtles occurs south of Highway 1 (Dunson 1992). It is estimated
that 50 turtles occur on Johnston Key. Big Pine Key supports only a small population (Dunson
1992).
Population Trends:
Population trend is unknown. Because of specific habitat requirements and high site fidelity, loss
and degradation of habitat likely leads to population extirpation (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Key Mud Turtle is imperiled (T2S2) (NatureServe 2008). It is listed as Endangered by the
State of Florida.
Habitat destruction:
Rapid habitat destruction in the Lower Keys is a major threat to the Keys Mud Turtle (Dunson
1992). The Lower Keys are undergoing rapid development (NatureServe 2008). Increasing human
demand for freshwater and resultant groundwater decline are dire threats for this freshwaterdependent turtle (NatureServe 2008). As this turtle uses mosquito control ditches, it is threatened

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 630

 by filling in of ditches to accomodate management recommendations for key deer (Dunson
1992).
Overutilization:
This turtle is especially vulnerable to overutilization because of its extremely limited range.
Studies have shown that the removal of long-lived, slow-growing animals with life history traits
designed for replacement reproduction spread out over the course of a lifetime results in
population decline (Congdon et al. 1993, 1994). The elimination of individuals from populations
that are already threatened because of habitat degradation is an additive impact on already stressed
populations. Buhlmann and Gibbons (1997) state that even presently abundant species are of
concern because of the vast numbers of freshwater turtles being removed from the wild and
shipped to other countries. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission reports that
demand for freshwater turtles is increasing. In recent decades heavy commercial harvest of
southeastern freshwater turtles has occurred to meet foreign demand for turtles for use as meat,
pets, and in traditional medicine. Over 13 million adult turtles were being sold annually in Asian
countries by the late 1990s. Even limited take of turtles is unsustainable because of the key role of
large adult female turtles in sustaining populations
(http://myfwc.com/docs/CommissionMeetings/2009/2009_Apr_FreshwaterTurtle.pdf).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect this turtle or its habitat. A
large percentage of the total population occurs on private land which is undergoing rapid
development pressure. There are six protected occurrences on Key Deer and Great White Heron
national wildlife refuges. This turtle is listed as Endangered by the State of Florida, but this
designation does not convey substantial regulatory protection.
Other factors:
The Florida Center for Environmental Studies reports that the Lower Florida Keys population of
Striped Mud Turtle is in danger of extinction from sea level rise due to global climate change
(http://www.ces.fau.edu/floc/presentations/presentations.php?id=14).
References:
Congdon J.D., A.E. Dunham, R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and
demographics of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): Implications for conservation and
management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7: 826– 833.
Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1994. Demographics of common snapping
turtles: Implications for conservation and management of long-lived
organisms. American Zoologist 34:397-408.
Dunson, W. A. 1992. Striped mud turtle, Lower Keys population. Pages 105-110 in P. E. Moler,
editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. III. Amphibians and reptiles. Univ. Press of
Florida, Gainesville. 291 pp.
Florida Center for Environmental Studies. 2008. Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea:
Characteristics of Terrestrial Climate Sensitive Species. Harris, L., R. Noss, T. Hoctor, M. Volk,
S. Beyeler, J. Oetting, J. Weiss, and J. Overpeck.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/floc/presentations/presentations.php?id=14

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 631

 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Freshwater turtle trade in Florida
and recommendations for regulatory action.
http://myfwc.com/docs/CommissionMeetings/2009/2009_Apr_FreshwaterTurtle.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 632

 Scientific Name:
Lampsilis fullerkati
Common Name:
Waccamaw Fatmucket
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The range of the Waccamaw Fatmucket consists of less than 100 square km in the Waccamaw
River basin in North Carolina, and potentially in South Carolina (NatureServe 2008). This mussel
occurs in Lake Waccamaw, below the lake dam, and near Longs, South Carolina (Johnson 1984,
Porter 1985, Bogan 2002, Bogan and Alderman 2004, LeGrand et al. 2006).
Habitat:
In Lake Waccamaw this mussel is most abundant in deeper water with sandy substrate along the
northeast and eastern shore (Johnson 1984). The lake has a maximum depth of approximately 3 m,
there is little algal biomass in the water column, and pH is relatively constant (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are an estimated 1-5 populations of Waccamaw Fatmucket (NatureServe 2008). There are
three known occurrences of this mussel all within the Waccamaw basin in North Carolina and
adjacent South Carolina (Bogan 2002, LeGrand et al. 2006). Within Lake Waccamaw, this mussel
occurs in moderate densities, with an average density of 1.6 per square m (estimated population
of 14,240 individuals if uniform density across lake bottom) (Porter 1985).
Population Trends:
The population trend of this mussel is fairly stable, but juvenile recruitment in Lake Waccamaw is
low (Porter 1985).
Status:
NatureServe ranks the Waccamaw Fatmucket as critically imperiled in North Carolina. It is ranked
as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Because of this mussel's extremely limited distribution, it is highly vulnerable to habitat loss and
degradation. The survival of this mussel is dependent on high water quality in Lake Waccamaw and
in the Waccamaw River basin. Water quality in the watershed and in the lake is threatened by
several sources, including development along the lakeshore, agricultural runoff, and clear-cutting
along the river bank. The Cape Fear Arch Conservation Collaboration (2009) identifies
development, logging, and decreasing water quality as threats to aquatic species in the region,
including this mussel. At certain times of the year, the lake is particularly sensitive to increased
nutrient and sediment loading (NatureServe 2008). Nutrients, sediments, and pesticides from
agricultural and forestry operations threaten water quality in the lake and river (NatureServe
2008). Channelization of swamp creeks north of the lake also threatens water quality, as many of
these creeks drain agricultural areas. NatureServe (2008) reports that a golf course may be
planned around the lake. Water quality is also threatened by out-of-compliance discharges from
the Lake Waccamaw wastewater treatment plant (NatureServe 2008). The shoreline of Lake Waccamaw
is densely developed with cottages and homes, which is likely to contribute to nutrient loading and
wide-scale algal blooms in the lake (Shute 1997).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 633

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect this species, and no
occurrences are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). Lake Waccamaw is
critical habitat for the Lake Waccamaw Silverside (Menidia extensa), but NatureServe (2008)
states that this designation may not be sufficient to protect the Waccamaw Fatmucket population
in the lake, likely due to the need to protect high water quality in order to ensure the mussel's
survival.
Other factors:
This mussel is threatened by the invasion of the Asiatic clam, Corbicula fluminea. The Asiatic clam
is established in Lake Waccamaw, and the mussels are currently coexisting, but if water quality in
the lake deteriorates, Corbicula could become more dominant in more eutrophic conditions
(Green 1971). The Asiatic clam has already become more abundant in the lake since 1997 (NC
Wildlife Resources Commission 1998). Water pollution from a variety of sources is a also a
primary threat (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.
Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Alderman. 2004. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of South
Carolina. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 64 pp.
Cape Fear Arch Conservation Collaboration. 2009. Conservation Plan. Accessed Feb. 8, 2010 at:
http://www.capefeararch.org/Portals/0/documents/Conservation%20Plan%20Narrative%20Mar
ch%202009.doc.
Green, R.H. 1971. A multivariate statistical approach to the Hutchisonian niche: bivalve
molluscs of central Canada. Ecology, 52: 543-56.
Johnson, R.I. 1984. A new mussel, Lampsilis (Lampsilis) fullerkati (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from
Lake Waccamaw, Columbus County, North Carolina, with a list of the other unionid species of
the Waccamaw River system. Occasional Papers on Molluscs, 4(63): 305-319.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). 1985. Assessment of water
quality of surface waters in North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, Division of Environmental Management.
Porter, H. J. 1985. Rare and endangered fauna of Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina Watershed
System. Molluscan census and ecological interrelationships. North Carolina Endangered Species
Restoration Final Report to the North Carolina Wildlife Resouces Commission.
Shute, J.R. 1997. Waccamaw darter. pp. 31–32 In: Menhinick EF, Braswell AL (eds)
Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North Carolina. Part IV. A reevaluation of the
freshwater fishes. Occasional Pap NC State Mus Nat Sci 11: 1–106.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 634

 Scientific Name:
Lasmigona holstonia
Common Name:
Tennessee Heelsplitter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The Tennessee Heelsplitter occurs in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee.
The historic range of this mussel included the western slope of the Appalachians and the valleyridge portion of the Cumberlandian section of the Tennessee River drainage in Virginia,
Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama, and the Alabama River basin in Georgia and Alabama (Clarke
1985). In Virginia, extant populations occur at a few sites in the Clinch and Middle Fork Holston
River systems. In Tennessee, populations persist in very short sections of some tributaries to the
Little, Little Tennessee, Hiawassee, and Holston Rivers. In Georgia the species is still extant in
the Conasauga River drainage. Forms of the Tennessee Heelsplitter reported from the Cahaba and
Coosa rivers in the Mobile Basin are likely a distinct species, Lasmigona etowaensis (Mirarchi et
al. 2004 and update). Historical reports of the Heelsplitter from the Duck River may represent a
different entity, Lasmigona diversa (Conrad 1856, Ortmann 1924).
Habitat:
The Tennessee Heelsplitter generally occurs in small streams on fine sand-mud substrates in
shallow water. It is normally found near riffles, but has also been detected in backwaters and poollike features. Historically it was reported from small side channels and sloughs of larger rivers
(Clarke 1985, Ortmann 1918). It has been detected in springs with a width as small as 30 cm. This
mussel is associated with headwater areas (NatureServe 2008). Mirarchi et al. (2004) describe
this species' habitat as "creeks with flowing water over substrata of sand and mud (Parmalee and
Bogan 1998). Sometimes found below riffles in shallow stream margins. May occur in very small
creeks where often it is only mussel species present."
Ecology:
The ecology of the Tennessee Heelsplitter is not well known. In a second-order creek in Polk
County, Tennessee, eighteen invididuals were observed over 300 m, sex ratio was approximately
equal, and gravid females were detected (NatureServe 2008). This species is a long-term brooder
(Parmalee and Bogan 1998). Fish hosts include banded sculpin, rock bass, and possibly other
species of headwater fishes, because this mussel appears to be a host generalist (Mirarchi et al.
2004).
Populations:
There are from 21-80 populations of the Tennessee Heelsplitter, with several very small, disjunct
populations having been recently detected. In Cherokee County, Alabama the species persists in a
few tributaries of the Coosa River including Terrapin and Spring Creeks, and in Jackson County, a
single mussel was detected in Hurricane Creek in the Paint Rock drainage (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
NatureServe (2008) provides the following account on populations of this species: "McGregor et
al. (2000) collected specimens in the Cahaba River, Alabama. In North Carolina, it is known from
Valley Creek, Cherokee Co., Hiwassee River basin, Mills River, French Broad River basin, and
Lotla Creek, Little Tennessee River basin (Bogan, 2002) in Cherokee (extirpated) and Henderson Cos.
(LeGrand et al., 2006). In Tennessee, it was formerly in numerous small creeks and rivers in
east Tennessee including the upper Holston River (Hawkins Co.), Hiwassee River (Polk Co.),
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 635

 small streams in Campbell, Knox, Cocke, Sevier, Rhea, and Monroe Cos., and also in the
Conasauga River (Polk and Bradley Cos.) and in Hickory Creek (Coffee Co.) (Parmalee and
Bogan, 1998). In a survey of 134 sites in the New River Drainage in Virginia, Pinder et al. (2002)
found this species at 4 sites (3 in the Upper Wolf Creek system, Bland Co.; 1 in the Bluestone
River in Tazewell Co.; all Middle New drainage). Overall in Virginia, it occurs in the New River
(upper Walker Creek, upper Wolf Creek), and tributaries of the Clinch (Jones et al., 2001), (Copper
Creek- Fraley and Ahlstedt, 2000), Powell, and Holston drainages (Pinder et al., 2002). In the Coosa
River basin in Georgia, it is known historically from the Etowah, Oostanaula, Conasauga, and
Coosawattee River drainages but has not been collected live recently (except see below) (Williams and
Hughes, 1998). It can also be found in shallow streams that are part of the Tennessee River system,
Etowah River, Oostanaula River, and Conasuaga River in the extreme northwestern portion of Georgia
(GA NHP, pers. comm., March 2007)." NatureServe (2008) states that is locally common in some areas
(per Steve Ahlstedt) and that there are likely 1000 or more individuals combined for Tennessee,
Georgia, and North Carolina.
Population Trends:
The Tennessee Heelsplitter is declining in the short term (decline of 10-30 percent) and
moderately declining (decline of 25 - 50 percent) in the long term. Its distribution has been
reduced and it continues to decline (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Tennessee Heelsplitter is critically imperiled in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and
Virginia, and is imperiled in Tennessee (NatureServe 2008). It is ranked as Near Threatened by the
IUCN. Although a relatively large number of extant occurrences are known, some have extremely
low population sizes and some local extirpations have occurred in Tennessee and Alabama. It is
ranked as special concern/vulnerable by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993,
2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss and degradation is the greatest threat to imperiled southeastern mollusks like the
Tennessee Heelsplitter (Neves at al. 1997). This species' habitat has already been majorly
restricted (NatureServe 2008). Tennessee Heelsplitter habitat has been fragmented by
impoundment and reservoir construction. Water quality for this mussel has been degraded by
siltation and stream bed physical disruption from poor agricultural practices including
uncontrolled cattle grazing, which NatureServe (2008) describes as a major threat for this
species. This species is also threatened by urban and industrial development (NatureServe 2008).
Virginia's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2006) cites siltation, dredging,
pollution, mining, water withdrawal, and impoundment as threats to aquatic species in the
Southern Cumberlands. The strategy also outlines livestock, municipal development, and
wastewater treatment as specific threats to this mussel (p. H-32). The Alabama Dept. of
Environmental Management (2003) reports that the Tennessee River basin has been widely
degraded by nonpoint source pollution from many sources, particularly agriculture, urban
development, logging, and surface coal mining (ADEM 2003). There are more than 130 confined
animal feeding operations in the Tennessee River basin (ADEM 2003). Aquatic habitats in the
basin are also degraded by water-related recreational activities and nonpoint source pollution
from onsite residential sewage systems (ADEM 2003). Mussels in the Clinch watershed are
threatened by coal mining and agricultural practices (U.S. EPA 2002). This species is also
threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005). Mountaintop removal can fill in
streams entirely and can cause significant downstream and groundwater pollution. Pollutants
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 636

 associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota (Palmer et al.
2010). Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates
(Wood 2009). This mussel is also threatened by impoundment and dam operations for the Claytor
Hydroelectric Project (American Electric Power 2009).
Disease or predation:
Neves and Odom (1989) cite muskrat predation as a threat to imperiled mussels in the North Fork
of the Holston in Virginia.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect the Tennessee Heelsplitter,
and no occurrences are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). This species was
a federal Candidate for listing in 1994, and is still in dire need of ESA protection. It is listed as
Endangered by the states of North Carolina and Virginia, and as a Species of Greatest Conservation
Need in Alabama, but these designations do not provide substantial regulatory protection. This
mussel has no state status in Georgia or Tennessee. NatureServe (2008) provides the following
management recommendations for this species: "All populations should receive protection
through acquisition, easement, registry, and working with local, state, and federal government
agencies on issues relating to development, water quality, river designation, etc. Cooperative
development of basin-wide development plans to maintain water quality and prevent environmental
degradation should be a high priority. In particular, the establishment of environmentally
compatible soil conservation programs need to be established and emphasized as economically
advantageous to land owners (e.g., maintenance of higher agricultural productivity, cost
effectiveness, etc.)."
Other factors:
The Tennessee Heelsplitter faces heightened susceptibility to extinction because of population
isolation and low population abundance, which decrease the genetic viability of individual
populations and increase the risk of extirpation from stochastic genetic and environmental events.
Any factor which degrades water quality also threatens this mussel, and NatureServe (2008) lists
pollution as a threat to the survival of this species. The North Fork of the Holston River has been
severely impacted by mercury releases (Stansberry and Clench 1975, Neves 1991 in Flebbe et al.
1996).
References:
Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management. 2003. Tennessee River Basin Watershed
Management Plan. Clean Water Partnership. Available at:
http://www.adem.state.al.us/Education%20Div/Nonpoint%20Program/Basins/TennesseeRiverBa
sinManagementPlan.pdf Accessed Feb. 5, 2010.
American Electric Power. 2009. Claytor Hydroelectric Project Preliminary Licensing Proposal.
populations. FERC No. 739-018. Accessed Feb. 5, 2010 at:
http://www.claytorhydro.com/documents/2009/P739PLP-Final1-30-09.pdf
Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.
Clarke, A.H. 1985. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae). Part II: Lasmigona and
Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 399: 1-75.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 637

 Flebbe, P.A., J. Harrison, G. Kappesser, D. Melgaard, J. Riley, and L.W. Swift Jr. 1996. Status of
Aquatic Resources: part 1 of 2, pp. 15-63. In Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere
(SAMAB). The Southern Appalachian Assessment Aquatics Technical Report. Report 2 of 5.
USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.
Fraley, S.J. and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2000. The recent decline of the native mussels (Unionidae) of
Copper Creek, Russell and Scott Counties, Virginia. Pages 189-195 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I.
Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater
Mollusk Symposia Proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.
Jones, J.W., R.J. Neves, M.A. Patterson, C.R. Good, and A. DiVittorio. 2001. A status survey of
freshwater mussel populations in the upper Clinch River, Tazewell County, Virginia. Banisteria,
17: 20-30.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
McGregor, S.W., P.E. O'Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) fauna of the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11(26): 215-237.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Neves, R. J. and M. C. Odom. 1989. Muskrat predation on endangered freshwater mussels in
Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:934–941.
Ortmann, A.E. 1918. The nayades (freshwater mussels) of the Upper Tennessee Drainage.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 57: 577-580.
Ortmann, A.E. 1924. The naiad fauna of Duck River in Tennessee. The American Midland
Naturalist, 9: 18-62.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
Pinder, M.J., E.S. Wilhelm, and J.W. Jones. 2002. Status survey of the freshwater mussels
(Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the New River drainage, Virginia. Walkerana, 13(29/30): 189-223.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Clinch and Powell Valley watershed
ecological risk assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC;
EPA/600/R-01/050. Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
<http://www.epa.gov/ncea>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 638

 and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2006. Virginia's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy: Virginia's Southern Cumberland Mountains. Accessed Feb. 8, 2010 at:
http://bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-action-plan/chapter-9.pdf
Virginia's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 2006. Appendix H Threats to Species
of Greatest Conservation Need. Accessed Feb. 5, 2010 at: http://bewildvirginia.net/wildlifeaction-plan/appendix-h.pdf
Williams, J.D. and M.H. Hughes. 1998. Freshwater mussels of selected reaches of the main
channel rivers in the Coosa drainage of Georgia. U.S. Geological report to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District, Alabama. 21 pp.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 639

 Scientific Name:
Lasmigona subviridis
Common Name:
Green Floater
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The green floater occurred historically in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, North
Carolina, Virginia, Washington D.C., Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and New
Jersey. It is extant only in Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, New York and New Jersey. Williams et al. (2008) state: "Lasmigona subviridis occurs
in Atlantic Coast drainages from the St. Lawrence and Hudson River drainages in New York south
to the Cape Fear River drainage in North Carolina. A disjunct Atlantic Coast population is known
from the Savannah River drainage (Fuller 1971). Disjunct populations also occur in the Kanawha
River system of the Ohio River drainage in North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia (Clarke
1985, Pinder et al. 2003); the Tennessee River drainage, eastern Tennessee and western North
Carolina (Parmalee and Bogan 1998; R.S. Butler pers. comm.); and the Apalachicola Basin,
Alabama and Georgia (Brim Box and Williams 2000)" (p. 408).
Habitat:
This species inhabits medium-sized rivers and creeks, and strongly prefers calm, relatively
shallow waters (Strayer and Jirka 1997). It is most often found in hydrologically stable
environments as it is intolerant of frequent flooding and drying or changes in water flow
(NatureServe 2009). It prefers gravel and sand substrates and high water quality (NatureServe
2008).
Ecology:
Lasmigona subviridis is a non-migratory species; adults are virtually sessile, though passive
dispersal downstream may occur (NatureServe 2008).The green floater’s life history is similar to
that of many freshwater mussels: juveniles are incubated within females from August to the
following June, when they are released and attach to their glochidial hosts (host species are as yet
unidentified). Juveniles are parasitic, and adults feed on benthic detritus (James 1987). This
species is one of a few hermaphroditic freshwater mussel species; large population sizes may
therefore be less critical to reproductive success and persistence.
Populations:
Though the green floater is still present across a wide geographical range, many populations have
been extirpated, and others are experiencing precipitous declines (NatureServe 2008). Between
21 and 80 occurrences are estimated, though sites generally contain few individuals of this
species: the most populous surveyed site in New York found only 22 individuals (Strayer and
Jirka 1997). Global abundance is unknown.
The green floater is extirpated from many historical sites, and few new populations are being
found; most occurrences are thought to be marginally viable (NatureServe 2008). Few sites
remain in New York: it has been extirpated from the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers, and is rare in the
Oswego, Genesee, and Susquehanna basins (Strayer and Jirka 1997). In New Jersey, it was
historically found in the middle Delaware and Raritan Rivers, and remains only in Stony Brook
(Cordeiro 2003). The green floater was once present throughout much of Pennsylvania, but is
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 640

 now found only in the Susquehanna, Pine, Lower Juniata, and Sinnemahoning Rivers (Ortmann
1919, Bogan 1993, PA NHP as cited in NatureServe 2008). In Maryland, populations exist in the
upper and middle Potomac, and some Washington Metro drainages (Bogan and Proch 1995).
West Virginia populations are limited to the upper Potomac, Kanawha, New, Cascapon, and
Greenbrier Rivers (Taylor 1987, pers. comm. as cited in NatureServe 2009). In North Carolina,
this species is found in the Watauga, New River, Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, and Cape Fear River basins
(Bogan 2002), and in Allegheny, Ashe, Durham, Edgecombe, Granville, Halifax, Johnston, Nash,
Northhampton, Orange, Person, Rockingham, Stokes, Wake, and Watauga Counties (LeGrand et
al. 2006). In Tennessee, it is known in the Watauga River and Johnson County (Parmalee and
Bogan 1998). Populations were once extant in Georgia’s Flint River, but more recent surveys
have not confirmed this species in historical locations (Athearn 1992). The green floater is
known at three sites in Virginia’s New River drainage, and in the Holston and Clinch Rivers (Pinder et
al. 2002). Though it was historically present in several sites in the Apalachicola Basin,
recent surveys did not find this species at any documented historical locations (Brimbox and
Williams 2000, Mirarchi 2004).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the green floater has declined by up to 50 percent in the longterm, and by up to 30 percent in the short-term, stating:
“Few large populations remain and there has been a sharp decline in numbers where present (e.g.,
North Fork Shenandoah River) and it is extant at very few historic occurrences. Good populations,
such as the West fork Greenbriar either shift or are lost after major flood events. Populations of
this species were probably never very good . . . Although once widespread and common in the
Susquehanna River drainage in New York, populations have declined in recent years, probably due
to pollution (Strayer and Jirka, 1997) . . . In New York, it is extirpated in the Hudson River,
Mohawk River, and is rare in the Oswego, Genesee, and Susquehanna basins (Strayer and Jirka,
1997).”
This species also appears to be extirpated from Georgia and Kentucky (NatureServe 2008) and
from the Apalachicola Basin and the Tennessee River drainage of Alabama (Williams et al. 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists the green floater as critically imperiled in Maryland, New Jersey, and
North Carolina, imperiled in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and reports
that it is likely extirpated from Washington, D.C., and extirpated from Alabama, Georgia, and
Kentucky. It is listed as threatened by the state of Virginia, and as endangered by New Jersey, and
North Carolina. It is ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al.
1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
The green floater is threatened across its range by habitat loss and degradation resulting from
riparian zone removal for agriculture and development, water-level fluctuations resulting from
impoundment and diversion, and increased siltation resulting from a variety of activities including
instream gravel mining (NatureServe 2008, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources
2005, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 2009). The Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation (2009) reports that this mussel’s habitat in the North and South Fork
Shenandoah Rivers is threatened by degradation from impoundment, flow alteration, agriculture,
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 641

 and industry. The New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (2005) reports that this
mussel is threatened by instream gravel mining and dams. The Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland
Fisheries (2010) reports that this mussel is threatened by sediment load and turbidity alteration
from agriculture and forestry, and hydrologic regime alteration from municipal development.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the green floater. NatureServe (2009)
reports that few occurrences of the green floater are appropriately protected or managed.
Maryland’s highest quality occurrence (most valuable population) is located within a watershed
designated as a Nature Conservancy Bio-Reserve. It is listed as threatened or endangered in several
states including Virginia, New Jersey, and North Carolina, but this designation does not protect
the species' habitat.
Other factors:
Pollution is cited as one of the primary causes of this species’ decline (Strayer and Jirka 1997).
The green floater is threatened by increased siltation, algal blooms, cold-water releases from
dams, and other causes of water quality degradation (NatureServe 2008, Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation 2009). The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
(2009) reports that this mussel’s habitat in the North and South Fork Shenandoah Rivers is
threatened by agricultural runoff, arsenic contamination from past pesticide use, and mercury
contamination from factory spills. The Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries (2010) reports
that this mussel is threatened by “complications due to small populations,” toxins from roadways
and municipal development, and water temperature regime alteration.
The green floater may also be threatened by the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), zebra mussel
(Dreissena polymorpha), and quaga mussel (NatureServe 2008, Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation 2009).
References:
Athearn, H.D. 1992. New records for some species of Alasmidontini. Malacology Data Net,
3(1-4): 90-91.
Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.
Bogan, A.E. and T. Proch. 1995. Manual of the freshwater bivalves of Maryland. Prepared for a
workshop held at Versar, Inc., Columbia, Maryland, 9 March 1995. 68 pp.
Brimbox, J. and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin 21: 1-143.
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2005. Kentucky's Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed March 31, 2010 at:
http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/Volume%20II/Bivalvia/Bivalvia.htm#755

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 642

 LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 3, 2009.
New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation. 2005. New York State Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Appendix A8. Species Group Reports for Mollusks. Accessed
March 30, 2010 at:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/appendixa8.pdf
Ortmann, A.E. 1919. Monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III. Systematic account of
the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, 8(1): 1-385.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
Pinder, M.J., E.S. Wilhelm, and J.W. Jones. 2002. Status survey of the freshwater mussels
(Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the New River drainage, Virginia. Walkerana, 13(29/30): 189-223.
Strayer, D.L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The pearly mussels of New York state. New York State
Museum Memoir 26. The University of the State of New York. 113 pp. + figures.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2009. Results of Freshwater Mussel
Surveys of the North Fork and South Fork Shenandoah Rivers, Virginia. Division of Natural
Heritage Natural Heritage Technical Report 09-19.
Accessed March 31, 2010 at:
http://www.fnfsr.org/images/ShenandoahMusselSurvey_VANaturalHeritageProgram_Dec2009.p
df
Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2010. The Virginia Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
Appendix H — Threats to Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Accessed March 26, 2010 at:
http://www.bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-action-plan/appendix-h.pdf
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the
Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
908 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 643

 Scientific Name:
Laterallus jamaicensis
Common Name:
Black Rail
G Rank:
G4

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
During the breeding season, the eastern black rail occurs on the Atlantic Coast from Connecticut
to southern Florida, along the Gulf Coast to Texas, in the West Indies and down through Mexico
to Central America (Eddleman et al. 1994). Throughout this range, the species is irregular and
rare (Ibid.) It historically bred in Massauchusettes and inland in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma,
Minnesota, Michigan and east to Connecticut, but has not been documented to breed in these areas since
the 1930s (Eddleman et al. 1994).
Habitat:
The eastern black rail nest in high portions of salt and freshwater marshes, wet meadows and
flooded grasslands (Eddleman et al. 1994). Water depth is considered a key habitat component
with black rails selecting areas with shallower water than other rails and infrequent tidal
inundation or flooding (Todd 1977, Eddleman et al. 1988, Eddleman et al. 1994, Legare and
Eddleman 2001). The species is found in sites with moist soils and pools and vegetation dominated by
cordgrass (Spartina patens, S. alterniflora, S. cynosuroides, S. bakeri) and other high marsh species
(Eddleman et al. 1994). Nests are built on the ground in dense vegetation (Eddleman et al. 1988).
Black rails use wet prairie or grassland habitat as staging grounds along their migration route
(Eddleman et al. 1988).
Ecology:
This species feeds on invertebrates and the seeds of aquatic vegetation and forages by probing
substrate with its bill, or gleaning items from the water’s surface (Terres 1980, Ehrlich et al.
1988). Mating occurs in late April – mid-May, and eggs may hatch anytime between late May and
early August (Harrison 1975, Ehrlich et al. 1988). Clutch size is 6-8 eggs; both males and
females incubate and care for offspring (Audubon 2009).
Populations:
Total population size of the eastern black rail is unknown as secretive habits and a dearth of
information from most of this species' range make estimation difficult, but likely rare and
irregular (Eddleman et al. 1988, Eddleman et al. 1994, NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) cites a number of studies showing donward trends, noting that a 1988 census
in southern New Jersey found rails at only 14 of 59 sites (Kerlinger and Sutton 1989), that "black
rails were absent from many historical sites in Atlantic barrier island marshes, and observers
attribute their disappearance to intense wetland alteration and human intrusion" (Ibid.), and that

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 644

 black rails have nearly dissapeared in the Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge/Broadkill Beach,
Delaware area (Armistead 1990).
Status:
Though breeding populations are present in much of North America, populations are relatively
small and declining. NatureServe (2008) lists the black rail as critically imperiled in Connecticut,
Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, and Tennessee,
imperiled in Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, Texas, and Virginia, vulnerable in North Carolina. It is
not ranked in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.
It is state-listed as endangered in Illinois, Indiana, New York, Delaware,and Connecticut,
threatened in New Jersey, and as a species of special concern in North Carolina, Maryland, and
Virginia.
Eddleman et al. (1988) concluded that "The status of the midwestern population of inland breeding
Black Rails is unknown, but sightings and calls have been alarmingly low in the last 40 years in
breeding areas and in Gulf Coast wintering areas."
Habitat destruction:
Loss and degradation of habitat is the greatest threat to the continued existence of the eastern
black rail (Todd 1977, Tiner 1984, Kerlinger and Sutton 1989, Kerlinger and Wiedner 1990,
Eddleman et al. 1994, NatureServe 2008). As a wetland-obligate species, eastern black rails have
become increasingly threatened by agricultural development and urbanization in the 20th century.
Several states that comprise a substantial portion of the black rail’s historical range have lost 70%
or more of their wetlands; Connecticut and Maryland stand out particularly (Dahl 1990). Citing a
number of sources, NatureServe (2008) noted large loss of wetland habitats for the black rail,
stating:
"According to Tiner (1984), only 46% of the original 87 million ha of wetlands in the U.S.
remained by the mid-1970s. Between the mid-1950s and the mid-1970s, 7,300 ha of estuarine
and 178,000 ha of palustrine wetlands were lost each year. Most of this national wetland loss was
attributed to agricultural development. The coastal marshlands of several Northeastern states
diminished by hundreds to thousands of hectares each year in the 1970s (Tiner 1984). New Jersey
and New York, suffered significant wetland loss from dredge and residential development in
coastal areas (Tiner 1984, Kerlinger and Sutton 1989). Connecticut also lost approximately half
of theits original wetland acreage (Tiner 1984)."
There are no indications that loss of habitat for the eastern black rail has ceased or that extensive
areas have been restored.
Overutilization:
Black rails have not been considered a game species in decades, but are occasionally taken in hunts
for other rails (Eddleman et al. 1994, NatureServe 2008).
Disease or predation:
Predation by various species is well documented, and is most likely to occur when high tides force
black rails from dense vegetative cover, exposing them to predators (Evens and Page 1986).
Common predators include great egrets (Ardea alba), great blue herons (Ardea herodias), and
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 645

 northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), several owl species, ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis), and
domestic cats (NatureServe 2008). Other possible predators include foxes, snakes, snapping
turtles (Chelydra serpentina), and raccoons (Procyon lotor).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are few to no protections specifically targeted towards the eastern black rail. NatureServe
(2008), for example, concluded:
"No state in the Northeast presently implements any management procedures or programs
specifically designed to protect or enhance populations or breeding areas (Davidson 1992). Many
breeding areas in the region are located on state wildlife areas and national wildlife refuges.
However, large areas of high marsh on these public lands have been impounded and are managed
primarily for waterfowl. Water levels in these areas are typically too high to support the required
habitat."
The black rail is state-listed as endangered in Illinois, Indiana, New York, Delaware,and
Connecticut, threatened in New Jersey, and as a species of special concern in North Carolina,
Maryland, and Virginia. However, these designations afford the black rail no substantial regulatory
protection for the rail's habitat despite the fact that the species is primarily threatened by habitat
destruction.
Other factors:
The eastern black rail faces a number of other threats to its continued existence, including invasive
species, pollution, climate change and burning of marshes. The common reed, (Phragmites spp.)
is a weedy, invasive species that threatens the integrity of many tidal wetland or marsh
communities. Anthropogenic disturbance and development near these habitats facilitates the
incursion of Phragmites, particularly by increasing nitrogen availability through runoff from
agricultural and urban or suburban areas (King et al. 2007). Disturbed and stressed wetlands are
known to be most vulnerable to Phragmites invasion (NatureServe 2008). Phragmites
outcompetes native plants, replacing them with dense, monospecific stands that are thought to be
unsuitable as black rail habitat (Audubon 2009). While the specific effects of Phragmites on black
rail populations are as yet unknown, this invasive plant is widely cited as a plausible contributor to
the black rail’s decline. The black rail also appears to be threatened by red fire ants (Solenopsis
invicta). Legare and Eddleman (2001) observed that fire ants constructed mounds under nests and
killed one hatchling.
Chemical contamination is reported in several other marsh bird species (e.g., Stendell et al. 1980)
and is thought to have a potentially significant impact on the health of some black rail populations.
Toxins may come from agricultural runoff (pesticides, fertilizers), recreation (lead shot), or other
human activities.
Because climate change is projected to increase the frequency of major weather events and cause
rising sea levels, it presents a serious threat to the black rail because of its use of coastal habitats
and sensitivity to flooding.
Finally, many salt marshes in the eastern coastal plains are burned annually, a practice that may
inadvertently cause habitat loss as the dead vegetation used by black rails for nesting is removed

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 646

 (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Browne, M. M., and W. Post. 1972. Black rails hit a television tower at Raleigh, North Carolina.
Wilson Bulletin 84: 491-492.
Dahl , T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780'S to
1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Eddleman, W. R., F. L. Knopf, B. Meanley, F. A. Reid, and R. Zembal. 1988. Conservation of
North American rallids. Wilson Bull. 100:458-475.
Eddleman, W. R., R. E. Flores and M. Legare. 1994. Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), The
Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved
from the Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/123doi:10.2173/bna.123
Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook: a field guide to the
natural history of North American birds. Simon and Shuster, Inc., New York.
Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy: the Imperiled and Extinct
Birds of the United States and Canada, Including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University
Press, Stanford, California.
Evens, J., and G. W. Page. 1986. Predation on black rails during high tides in salt marshes.
Condor 88: 107-109.
Hands, H. M., R. D. Drobney, and M. R. Ryan. 1989. Status of the black rail in the north-central
United States. Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Report.
Jayne, P. 1990. Nutria: a menace to Maryland marshes. Tracks ‘n’ Trails 6:1.
Kerlinger, P., and C. Sutton. 1989. Black rail in New Jersey. Records of New Jersey Birds 15:
22-26.
Kerlinger, P., and D. S. Wiedner. 1990. Habitat use and vocal behavior of black rails in South
Jersey. Unpublished draft report. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Endangered and Nongame Species Program.
King, R.S., Deluca, W.V., Whigham, D.F., and P.P. Marra. 2007. Threshold effects of coastal
urbanization on Phragmites australis (common reed) abundance and foliar nitrogen in
Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 30: 469-481.
Legare, M.L. and W.R. Eddleman. 2001. Home Range Size, Nest-Site Selection and Nesting
Success of Black Rails in Florida. Journal of Field Ornithology, Vol. 72, No. 1. pp. 170-177
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 4, 2009 ).
Stendell, R. C., J. W. Artmann, and E. Martin. 1980. Lead residues in sora rails from Maryland.
Journal of Wildlife Mangement 44 :525-527.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 647

 Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A.
Knopf, New York.
Tiner, R. W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: current status and recent trends. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Washington, D.C.
Todd, R.L. 1977. Black rail, little black rail, black crake, Farallon rail. Pp. 71-83, in G.C.
Sanderson, ed., Management of migratory shore and upland game birds in North America.
International Association of Fish Wildlife Agencies, Washington, D.C
Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2010. The Virginia Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
Appendix H — Threats to Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Accessed March 26, 2010 at:
http://www.bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-action-plan/appendix-h.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 648

 Scientific Name:
Lepidostoma morsei
Common Name:
Morse's Little Plain Brown Sedge
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Morse’s little plain brown sedge is a species of caddisfly endemic to the southeastern United
States. It occurs in Florida, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Texas, though it is known from only a
very few locations within this range and is considered rare (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This caddisfly occurs in flowing water habitats and is most commonly sighted among dead plant
material (NatureServe 2008). In Florida, this species is associated with blackwater (softwater)
stream habitat, a unique ecosystem threatened by a multitude of factors (Florida FWC 2009).
Ecology:
Larvae are aquatic, and as members of the Lepidostomatidae, are tube-case makers, constructing
encasements of sand, vegetative matter, or other available material that protect them from
predators for the duration of their aquatic stage (NatureServe 2008, Grimaldi and Engel 2005).
Emergent adults do not generally disperse great distances from their site of emergence, and
dispersal distance is negatively correlated with vegetation density around the emergence site,
emphasizing the importance of habitat continuity and integrity (Collier and Smith 1997,
LaFontaine 1981). The Morse’s little plain brown sedge does not migrate.
Populations:
Total global abundance is estimated to be less than 1000 individuals (NatureServe 2008). Until
2004, only two occurrences of Morse’s little plain brown sedge were known: one in Little Alaqua
Creek (Walton County, Florida), and one in Stone County, Mississippi. Cosgrove (2004 as cited
in NatureServe 2008) reports an occurrence in New Jersey, and NatureServe (2008) reports
another in Texas. Clearly, these occurrences are highly disjunct, and while other populations may
exist, the viability of such isolated populations is likely to be quite low. This species is known
from only two specimens in Florida, one from 1970 and one from 1984 (Rasmussen et al. 2008).
Population Trends:
Population trends, both short- and long-term, are unknown due to the rarity of this species
(NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists Morse's Little Plain Brown Sedge as critically imperiled in Florida, and
its status is under review in Mississippi, New Jersey, and Texas. It is state-listed as endangered in
Ohio, Alabama, and New Jersey, and as a species of special concern in Maryland. The Florida
Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals ranks this species as threatened
(Rasmussen et al. 2008).
Habitat destruction:
This caddisfly is sensitive to siltation and pollution (NatureServe 2008) and is thus threatened by
a variety of factors including unsustainable forestry practices; conversion of habitat to agriculture,

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 649

 industrial, and residential development; surface water diversion; groundwater withdrawal for
irrigation, municipal, and other uses; resource extraction, and unsustainable recreational activities
(Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that no occurrences are appropriately protected or managed. The range
of this species in Florida is on Eglin Air Force base, which provides some habitat protection but
does not necessarily protect this species from pollution, a primary threat.
Other factors:
This caddisfly is threatened by water pollution (NatureServe 2008). The Florida Wildlife
Conservation Commission (2009) reports that the softwater streams which support this species
are threatened by contamination by toxins and chemicals, eutrophication and nutrient loading from
municipal and agricultural sources, and invasive species.
References:
Collier, K.J., and B.J. Smith. 1997. Dispersal of adult caddisflies (Trichoptera) into forests
alongside three New Zealand streams. Hydrobiologia 361: 53-65.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. 2009. Softwater Stream Habitat Fact Sheet. Accessed
online July 30, 2009 <<
http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Softwater_Stream.pdf>>
Fontaine, G. 1981. Caddisflies. The Lyons Press: New York, NY.
Grimaldi, D., and M.S. Engel. 2005. Evolution of the insects. Cambridge University Press:
New York, NY.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 11, 2009)
Rasmussen, A.K., D.R. Denson, and S.C. Harris. 2008. Status of caddisflies (Insecta:
Trichoptera) in greatest conservation need in Florida. Final Report to the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission under Agreement Number 06009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 650

 Scientific Name:
Leptoxis arkansensis
Common Name:
Arkansas Mudalia
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The Arkansas Mudalia occurs in several creeks in Arkansas and in the North Fork of the White
River basin watershed in Missouri (Wu et al. 1997). Its occurrence in Missouri was confirmed in
2006 (P. Johnson, AL DCNR, pers. comm., November 2006 cited in NatureServe 2008). It was
thought to be extirpated in Arkansas, but was redetected in 2009 (Hayes et al. 2009).
Populations:
There are fewer than five populations of this snail (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this snail very rapidly declining (decline of 50-70 percent). It
was thought to be extirpated in Arkansas (Wu et al. 1997) but was recently redetected at several
historical sites in the state (Hayes et al. 2009).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Arkansas Mudalia as critically imperiled in Arkansas (G1S1) and
vulnerable (S3) in Missouri. It is a Species of Conservation Concern in Missouri.
Habitat destruction:
The Arkansas Mudalia is extremely vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation due to its limited
range. The Missouri Dept. of Conservation (2001) reports that the North Fork of the White River
watershed is threatened by water quality degradation due to high fecal coliform levels, nutrient
loading, and sediment deposition. Activities such as gravel dredging, indiscriminate land clearing,
livestock grazing in riparian zones, and contamination from septic systems and municipal
discharges all threaten this species' habitat (Missouri Dept. of Conservation 2001).
Mining is also a threat to the Arkansas Mudalia. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Geology and Land Survey, has identified 23 active mines and 137 past producers
within the North Fork Watershed in Missouri, including gravel removal operations, limestone
quarries, and iron mines, all of which threaten water quality (Missouri Dept. of Conservation
2010).
Recreational activities and developments also threaten this snail. The North Fork Watershed is
heavily used for fishing and floating. Bank and shoreline development continues to occur in some
areas on the major streams of the watershed, with housing construction on the North Fork River
downstream of the Mark Twain National Forest being one example. Problems associated with
recreational activities and developments include destabilization of stream banks and flood plains
due to vegetation removal, increased sediment loading, and water quality impacts from poorly
treated sewage (Missouri Dept. of Conservation 2010).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 651

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect this snail. It is a Missouri Species of
Conservation Concern but this does not convey regulatory protection. It has no status in Arkansas
(Anderson 2006).
Other factors:
This species is threatened by pollution from a variety of sources.
References:
Anderson, J.E. (Ed) 2006. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission,
Little Rock, Arkansas. 2028 pp. http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/03SGCN.pdf
Hayes, D.M., A.D. Christian, W.R. Posey, and R.L. Minton. 2009. Richness and conservation
status of Arkansas freshwater gastropods. International Symposium of the Freshwater Mollusk
Conservation Society Meeting Program and Abstracts. April 19 - 24, 2009. Baltimore,
Maryland. http://ellipse.inhs.uiuc.edu/FMCS/Meetings/2009Symp/2009Program.pdf
Missouri Dept. of Conservation. 2001. North Fork of the White River Watershed Inventory and
Assessment. Available at: http://mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/northfrk/contents/ Last accessed
Jan. 4, 2009.
Missouri Dept. of Conservation. 2009. Missouri Species of Conservation Concern.
http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/145.pdf
Missouri Dept. of Conservation. 2010. North Fork of the White River Watershed Water Quality.
http://mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/northfrk/watqual/
Wu, S.-K., R.D. Oesch, and M.E. Gordon. 1997. Missouri Aquatic Snails. Natural History Series,
No. 5. Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson, Missouri. 97 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 652

 Scientific Name:
Leptoxis picta
Common Name:
Spotted Rocksnail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of the Spotted Rocksnail is 100-250 square km in Alabama. This species occurred
historically in the main channel of the Alabama River in Monroe County, the main stem of the
Cahaba in Dallas County, and the Coosa to the foot of the rapids in Elmore County (Goodrich
1941). Burch (1989) describes this snail's range as the Alabama River from the Coosa to Monroe
County and the Coosa as far up as the gravel bars below the last series of rapids below Wetumpka.
This species may now be extirpated in the Coosa and the Cahaba (NatureServe 2008). This snail
was recently detected in a small section of the Alabama River downstream from Jones Bluff,
Millers Ferry, and Claiborne Locks and Dams in Autauga, Dallas, Wilcox, Monroe, and Clark
counties (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Habitat:
The Spotted Rocksnail uses gravel, cobble, or bedrock substrate in flowing water (Mirarchi et al.
2004). This snail is associated with limestone outcroppings (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Ecology:
Little is known about the ecology of the Spotted Rocksnail, but it is thought to be somewhat
sedentary, moving little within appropriate habitats (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are from 6-20 populations of Spotted Rocksnail, but this
may not reflect suspected extirpation from the Coosa and Cahaba (Bogan and Pierson 1993). This
snail has been recently reported only from three short reaches of the Alabama River (Mirarchi et
al. 2004). It appears to be doing well below Claiborne Dam, but is uncommon below Millers Ferry
Dam. In the early 1990s, it was locally abundant downstream of Claiborn Lock and Dam, but
more recent surveys detected only a few specimens (Mirarchi et al. 2004). Total population size
is crudely estimated at 250 - 10,000 individuals (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The Spotted Rocksnail is rapidly declining (decline of 30-50 percent) in the short-term and has
experienced a substantial long-term decline of 50-75 percent (NatureServe 2008). The decline
may be even greater than this, in light of recent information on extirpations in the Coosa, Cahaba,
and portions of the Alabama (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Status:
The Spotted Rocksnail is critically imperiled (G1S1) (NatureServe 2008). Stein (1976) reports it
as endangered in Alabama (Mirarchi 2004). It is categorized by the IUCN as vulnerable.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss and degradation from impoundment and pollution have already extirpated this species
from much of its former range, and remain ongoing threats to its survival, particularly non-point
source pollution from agriculture. Extensive portions of this snail's habitat in the Alabama and
Coosa were lost to impoundment. Alterations in flow and water quality from the operation of

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 653

 Jordan Dam contributed to extirpation in the lower Coosa. Water quality deterioration likely
extirpated this snail from the lower Cahaba and portions of the Alabama River. Snail fauna in this
region have been adversely affected by changing patterns of land use, particularly intensive
agriculture and ensuing siltation and pollution (Dillon and Lydeard 1998).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect this species.
Other factors:
Limited distribution and rarity make this snail vulnerable to extinction (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
References:
Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Pierson. 1993. Survey of the aquatic gastropods of the Cahaba River Basin,
Alabama: 1992. Final report submitted in October 1993 to Alabama Natural Heritage Program,
Montgomery, Alabama, Contract Number 1922. 20 pp.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Dillon, R.T. and C. Lydeard. 1998. Divergence among Mobile Basin populations of the
Pleurocerid snail genus, Leptoxis, estimated by allozyme electrophoresis. Malacologia 39(12):113-121.
Dillon, R.T. Jr. and C. Lydeard. 1998. Divergence among Mobile Basin populations of the
pleurocerid snail genus, Leptoxis, estimated by allozyme electrophoresis. Malacologia, 39(1-2):
113-121.
Goodrich, C. 1922. The Anculosae of the Alabama River drainage. University of Michigan
Museum of Zoology, Miscellaneous Publication, 7: 1-57.
Goodrich, C. 1941. Distribution of the gastropods of the Cahaba River, Alabama. Occasional
Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 428: 1-30.
Lydeard, C., W. E. Holznagle, J. Garner, P. Hartfield, and J. M. Pierson. 1997. A Molecular
phylogeny of Mobile River drainage basin pleurocerid snails (Caenogastropoda: Cerithioidea).
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 7(1):117-128.
Lydeard, Charles. Associate Professor, University of Alabama, Department of Biological
Sciences. Box 870345, 425 Scientific Collections Building, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487.
McGregor, S.W., P.E. ONeil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia:Unionidae) fauna in the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11:215–238.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 654

 Scientific Name:
Leptoxis virgata
Common Name:
Smooth Mudalia
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of the Smooth Mudalia encompasses 250-1000 square km (NatureServe 2008). This
Tennessee River drainage endemic historically occurred from the headwaters of the Tennessee
downstream to Jackson County, Alabama, and in the Holston River drainage from Sullivan to Knox
counties, TN (Burch 1989). This snail still occurs in the Clinch, Powell, French Broad, Holston,
Nolichucky, and Hiwassee river drainages in Tennesse, and potentially in North Carolina and
Virginia (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Habitat:
The habitat requirements of this snail have not been studied, but based on its extirpation in
polluted waters and waters that have been dammed, it requires clean, flowing water (NatureServe
2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are from 6-20 extant populations of the Smooth Mudalia.
Overall population size is unknown. "Fairly dense" populations are present in sections of the
Hiawassee River drainage.
Population Trends:
The Smooth Mudalia has been extirpated from much of its historical habitat. Remaining
populations in the Tennessee River headwaters appear to be secure, but their survival depends on
maintaining suitable habitat conditions.
Status:
The Smooth Mudalia is critically imperiled in Tennessee and presumed extirpated in Alabama
(NatureServe 2008). NatureServe (2008) ranks the snail as SNA (Not Applicable) in North
Carolina and Virginia, and reports of populations from those states may be erroneous (Mirarchi et
al. 2004, LeGrand et al. 2006). It is classified as Vulnerable by the IUCN. Many populations have
been extirpated and the snail's historical range has been dramatically reduced.
Habitat destruction:
The Smooth Mudalia is dependent on unpolluted, flowing water for survival. Much of this snail's
historical range has been polluted or inundated by the creation of reservoirs, resulting in
population extirpation (NatureServe 2008). This species is threatened by any activity which
degrades water quality, including logging, mining, runoff, pollution, and disruption of flow
regime. This snail potentially occurs within the project area of a proposed industrial development
by the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company on the bank of the Tennessee River and Guntersville
Reservoir in Marion County (TVA 2009). This snail is also potentially threatened by the
development of a commercial marina on the bank of the Tennessee River in Marion County (U.S.
ACOE 2009).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 655

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms for the protection of the Smooth Mudalia. Johnson et
al. (2005) reported populations of this species in and adjacent to the Cherokee National Forest in
Polk Co., Tennessee, so some habitat for this species is under federal management, but this does
not convey habitat protection.
Other factors:
Any factor which degrades water quality will negatively affect the Smooth Mudalia, including
pollution, alteration of hydrologic regime, introduction of invasive species, drought, etc. The
North Fork of the Holston River has been severely impacted by mercury releases (Stansberry and
Clench 1975, Neves 1991 in Flebbe et al. 1996).
References:
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Johnson, P.D., C. St. Aubin, and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2005. Freshwater mussel survey results for the
Cherokee and Chattahoochee districts of the United States Forest Service in Tennessee and
Georgia. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama. 32 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil.
2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for
Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 2009. Final Environmental Assessment. Chicago Bridge and Iron
Company Marion County, Tennessee.
http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/chicago_bridge_iron/fea.pdf Last accessed January 12,
2010.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Rarity Club Marina Draft Environmental Assessment. File
No. 200500237. Applicant: Nickajack Shores Holdings LLC. Application for Proposed Docks at
Embayment Adjacent to Tennessee River Mile 426.7R Nickajack Reservoir.
http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/rarity_club_marina/rarity_club_marina_dea.pdf
Accessed Jan. 12, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 656

 Scientific Name:
Leuctra szczytkoi
Common Name:
Louisiana Needlefly
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
NE - Not evaluated

Range:
This stonefly, also known as the Schoolhouse Springs Leuctran Stonefly, is found in the Red River
Drainage of central and north central Louisiana (NatureServe 2008). Its range is less than 100250 square km (less than about 40 to 100 square miles).
Habitat:
The Louisiana needlefly is found in slow moving streams with tea colored water, abundant
attached microbes, sandy substrate, and abundant woody debris (NatureServe 2008). It prefers
areas that are shaded by overhanging hardwoods (USFS 2007).
Populations:
This species is known from four sites, one of which is now historical. There is a high probability
more occurrences exist within its very limited global range (Red River Drainage of LA only).
NatureServe (2008) estimates that this species could potentially have up to 20 genuinely discrete
occurrences, but there is currently no data to confirm this assumption. This species can be locally
abundant in appropriate habitat.
Population Trends:
Trend has not been quantified for this species. It is known from only four sites, and appears to
have been extirpated from one of them. This would indicate a 25 percent decline, but this species
is expected to be found in more locations following future surveys.
Status:
This species is known from only three sites, has an extremely limited range, and specialized
habitat. It is ranked as imperiled by NatureServe (2008). It was a Federal C-2 and C-3B candidate
species before those lists were abolished.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is threatened by alteration of habitat by heavy
siltation, dams, and diversions. This stonefly is also threatened by pesticide runoff, and could
become threatened by Dimilin used in gyspy moth eradication efforts.
Leuctra szczytkoi faces habitat destruction from ATV use on the Kisatchie National Forest in
Lousiana: “Heavy ATV use in the watershed could result in harmful scouring of the substrate,
reducing available habitat for the Schoolhouse Springs leuctran stonefly. The Swafford, Beaver,
and Jordon Creeks on the Catahoula District are three of the four places the Schoolhouse Springs
leuctran stonefly has been found. Continued off-route motorized use … could therefore pose a
threat to the Schoolhouse springs leuctran stonefly. The prohibition of off-route motorized travel
… would benefit the stonefly” (USFS 2007).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 657

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The Nature Conservancy now owns the type locality for this stonefly, but this species no longer
occurs there (NatureServe 2008).
Leuctra szczytkoi occurs in the Kisatchie National Forest in Lousiana, where it is a Regional
Forester Sensitive Species. It has been collected from Loving Creek on the Evangeline Unit; and
Swafford Creek, Beaver Creek, and Jordon Creek on the Catahoula District (USFS 2007).
Protection offered to sensitive species is discretionary, and even on national forest lands this
species is threatened by logging projects and recreation, particularly from ATV use.
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.
References:
Dewalt, R. E., and Bill P. Stark. 1996. Descriptions of the female, nymph, and variation in male
characters of the stonefly LEUCTRA SZCZYTKOI (Plecoptera: Leuctridae). Ent. News 107 (2):
61-67.
Stark, B.P. 1996. Last updated 16 February 2001. North American Stonefly List. Online.
Available: http://www.mc.edu/campus/users/stark/Sfly0102.htm.
U.S. Forest Service. 2007. Environmental Assessment for the Kisatchie National Forest Travel
Management Project. Available online at
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/n
epa/20173_FSPLT1_014660.pdf. Last accessed March 16, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 658

 Scientific Name:
Libellula jesseana
Common Name:
Purple Skimmer
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
This species is endemic to Florida (NatureServe 2008). It is found in two disjunct areas, nine
counties on the eastern side of Florida Peninsula, and Bay/Washington Counties in the Florida
Panhandle.
Habitat:
This dragonfly inhabits clear-water, sand-bottomed lakes, of the most infertile type, edged with
sparse maiden-cane grass and St. John's Wort shrubs (NatureServe 2008). Adults forage in open
woodland or shrubland.
Ecology:
In polluted lakes, this species is displaced by the common species L. Auripennis.
Populations:
This species was previously known from 15 lakes, but NatureServe (2008) cites a personal
communication from Jerrell Daigle (2006) stating that this species is now only detected regularly
at a single lake. It is thought that this dragonfly might occur in a few lakes in adjacent Georgia and
Alabama, but to date there have been no detections outside Florida. This species is abundant in
appropriate habitat.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports a short term decline of 10-30 percents, and projects a long-term
decline of over 75 percent because this species cannot persist in developed or polluted habitats.
Paulson (2007) reports that recent information indicates the species has disappeared from all of
its known former locations in the Florida Panhandle and has not been seen recently at some
former locations in the Florida Peninsula.
Status:
According to NatureServe (2008), this species was previously ranked as imperiled based on
recently known occurrences, at the suggestion of Sid Dunkle. Although it was suspected that
additional occurrences probably existed, the rank also reflected the rapid development of sand
bottom lakes in Florida and the sensitivity of this species to eutrophication. However according to
Jerrell Daigle as of 2006 there is only one lake in a state park where this species can still be
found regularly, and this species is now ranked as critically imperiled (G1S1). It is ranked as
vulnerable by the IUCN. This dragonfly is highly threatened by lakeshore development and
resultant pollution.
Habitat destruction:
This species is threatened by the explosive population growth in Florida, especially around the
type of lake where this species occurs (NatureServe 2008). This dragonfly is highly sensitive to
eutrophication, and sand-bottomed lakes in its habitat are being developed rapidly. Lake
eutrophication caused by lawn fertilizers and septic tank outflows allows L. Auripennis to
outcompete L. jesseana. NatureServe (2008) states: "relatively slight eutrophication of a lake
would eliminate this species."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 659

 Paulson (2007) reports that "[e]utrophication and other types of water pollution from human
settlement at and near lakes, ongoing in much of L. jesseana range in Florida, continue to threaten
the habitat. Ground-water depletion because of irrigation could dry up some of the shallower ponds,
which is also continuing to happen on the sandy ridges of Florida…. Recent information
indicates the species has disappeared from all of its known former locations in the Florida
Panhandle and has not been seen recently at some former locations in the Florida Peninsula.
Although no exhaustive surveys have been conducted recently, right now anyone who wants to see
the species is directed to a single location, Scheeler Lake in Gold Head Branch State Park, Clay
County, as no one knows of other locations for certain. However, even this location may not be
suitable in the future as natural succession may make it uninhabitable for this sufficiently
specialized species."
According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2006), the Site 1
Impoundment Project of the Central And Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan will destroy the habitat of L. jesseana. “The purple skimmer dragonfly (Libellula
jesseana) is a rare odonate species recorded from aquatic areas throughout Palm Beach County…
The project site is not expected to support a highly diverse aquatic invertebrate community due to
the lack of habitat in the canalized canal and potential water quality issues in the existing pond and
small lake on the project site (USFWS 2004)… Fish and wildlife habitat at the proposed
impoundment site is expected to be adversely impacted by future residential development.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this dragonfly. It occurs in a state park and
on the Ocala National Forest.
References:
Dunkle, S.W., 1989. Dragonflies of the Florida Peninsula, Bermuda and the Bahamas. Scientific
Publishers, Gainesville, FL. 154 pp.
Florida DEP. 2006. Final Integrated Project Implementation Report And Environmental
Assessment, August 2006. Available online at
http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/DEAR/everglades/Site%201%20Impoundment/Tab%20B%20%20Final%20Site%201%20PIR%20&%20EA/Main%20Body.pdf. Last accessed March 17,
2010.
Needham, James G., and Minter J. Westfall, Jr. 1954. A Manual of the Dragonflies of North
America (Anisoptera). University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 615 p.
Paulson, D. R. 2007. Libellula jesseana. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.1. Available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/11929/0. Last
Accessed 17 March 2010.
Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum
of Natural History University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper Number 56:86 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 660

 Scientific Name:
Lilium iridollae
Common Name:
Panhandle Lily
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Lilium iridollae is endemic to the western Florida panhandle and southern Alabama (Chafin
2000). The range of this species is contested. Some say it ranges from northwest Florida and
south Alabama to Virginia, though its distribution is discontinuous within this area. But others
consider those in the sand hills of the Carolinas and Virginia to be a separate species, L.
pyrophilum (NatureServe 2008). Accepting L. pyrophilum as distinct, L. iridollae is limited to
the Gulf Coastal Plain, and its range encompasses fewer than 250 square km (100 square miles)
(NatureServe 2008). It is found in Escambia, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and Walton counties, the four
westernmost counties in Florida, and in two counties in adjacent Alabama (Chafin 2000, Coile
2000).
Habitat:
The Panhandle lily is a wetland obligate, meaning it occurs almost always in a wetland habitat
(Tobe et al. 1998). It can be found in baygalls, swamps and bogs, wet savannas, seepage slopes,
floodplain and bottomland forests, wet flatwoods, stream banks, and banks of blackwater creeks
(Chafin 2000, Kral 1983, NatureServe 2008, Tobe et al. 1998). Seepage slopes are located where
water flowing downhill is forced to the surface by an impermeable layer of clay or rock.
Baygalls are seepage depressions at the base of slopes, with a canopy of dense, evergreen
hardwoods, an open understory, and acidic, peaty soil. Floodplain and bottomland forests, located
in stream corridors, have a closed canopy of hardwoods and a dense to open understory and
experience occasional to frequent flooding. Soil types here vary and can consist of clay, organic
materials, sand, and alluvials (NatureServe 2008). L. iridollae is often located at the edges of
these areas or in clearings with full sunlight or semi-shade (Adams and Dress 1982, Kral 1983).
The panhandle lily prefers moist, loamy, acidic soils, often low in nutrients, consisting of organic
muck, sphagnous peat, and sand (Kral 1983, NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
L. iridollae is an herbaceous, bulbous, perennial (Barrows 1989, Kral 1983). It reaches heights of
3 to 5 feet, and it flowers from July to August (Chafin 2000, Henry 1946). Its capsules ripen in
mid-October, producing flat, winged, wind-dispersed seeds (Adams and Dress 1982, NatureServe
2008). Flowers and leaves provide a natural food source for herbivores and insects (Barrows
1989). L. iridollae prefers full or partial sunlight because shade and root competition cause it to
lose vigor and eventually die (Kral 1983). Its habitats are fire dependent, with seepage slopes
burning every five years and baygalls every 50. Fires act to reduce tree invasion and shrub height,
and in areas where fire is less frequent, panhandle lily is limited to the margins (NatureServe
2008).
Populations:
Between six and 20 occurrences of L. iridollae are estimated by NatureServe (2008). Seventy
sites were known in Florida in 2000, but over half of all known sites are considered to have poor
viability, and are composed of fewer than ten plants (Chafin 2000, NatureServe 2008). There is

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 661

 only one known large occurrence, located in Alabama, and most populations have only one or two
stems reported (NatureServe 2008). Fewer than 1,000 individuals are estimated (NatureServe
2008).
Population Trends:
Lilium iridollae was already rare when first discovered in 1946 (Henry 1946).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Panhandle lily as critically imperiled in Alabama and South
Carolina, and imperiled in Florida. It has not been ranked in Virginia.
Habitat destruction:
The panhandle lily is threatened by habitat loss and degradation from several factors. Fire
suppression in nearly the entire longleaf pine region has rendered unsuitable many panhandle lily
habitats. Even in areas where appropriate fire regime has been reintroduced, in situ seeds may no
longer be viable in many areas, so lilies would need to be reintroduced. Fire breaks in ecotones
which prevent fire from reaching wetland habitats have already caused a decline in this species’
viability and will continue to do so (Chafin 2000). Drainage of wetlands and conversion of vast
areas to agricultural lands and pine plantations has resulted in the loss of many suitable sites. As
panhandle lilies are dependent on inundated soils, draining wetlands for any type of land
conversion is deleterious to this species (NatureServe 2008). Changes in hydrology resulting
from logging, construction, and development also threaten this species (Chafin 2000). Extensive
loss of habitat to housing and industrial tracts has had a permanent impact. Lilies can survive in
powerline and gasline corridors, which need to be surveyed. In these areas, lilies may be
threatened by herbicide applications. The construction of dams on streams where L. iridollae
occurs has impacted at least one population in Florida, and the construction of farm and
recreation ponds on dozens of streams has possibly impacted plants in the Carolina Sandhills.
Drainage, bulldozing, root raking, bedding, chopping, and grazing can all lead to the elimination of
this species (Kral 1983). L. iridollae is extremely sensitive to grazing pressure. Its leaves and
stems are highly palatable to cattle and deer, and hogs uproot the bulbs (Henry 1946, Kral 1983).
Grazing by deer in natural landscapes may be deleterious where their populations are not kept in
check by hunting or natural predators. Kral (1983) states that "All lilies are highly palatable to
both deer and cattle and are the first to go with any grazing pressure."
Overutilization:
Overutilization is a documented threat to this species. A population was removed by horticultural
collectors from Conecuh National Forest (White et al. 1992). The Panhandle lily is “large and
showy” and “collecting may be more common than currently believed, especially among those
people desirous of possessing such a rare entity” (White et al. 1992, NatureServe 2008). The
threat posed to this rare species by overcollection is magnified by the threats of habitat loss and
predation from grazing.
Disease or predation:
The panhandle lily is threatened by predation from cattle, deer, hogs, and possibly insects (Henry
1946, Kral 1983, Barrows 1989). Barrows (1989) reports predation by an unknown animal and
herbivory by insects. In conjunction with other threats, and given the drastically reduced range of
this species, even natural levels of predation could increasingly threaten this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that no occurrences of this species are appropriately protected. Even
on public lands where the lily is protected from development, it is threatened by fire suppression
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 662

 and by collection (White et al. 1992, Chafin 2000). This lily is documented on Eglin Air Force
Base, Blackwater River State Park and Blackwater River State Forest in Florida, and in Conecuh
National Forest, Alabama.
References:
Barrows, E.M. 1989. Flower number, plant size, and plant vigor in a Florida population of the
globally endangered pot-of-gold lily, Lilium iridollae. J. Washington Academy Science 79(3):
118-122.
Barrows, E.M. 1989. Flower number, plant size, and plant vigor in a Florida population of the
globally endangered pot-of-gold lily, Lilium iridollae. J. Washington Academy Science 79(3):
118-122.
Chafin, L. G. 2000. Field guide to the rare plants of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory,
Tallahassee.
Coile, N.C., and M.A. Garland. 2003. Notes on Florida's endangered and threatened plants.
Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry.
<http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/enpp/botany/images/Notes2003.pdf>.
Coile, Nancy C. 2000. Notes on Florida's Endangered and Threatened Plants. 3rd ed. Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville.
Henry, M.G. 1946. A new lily from southern Alabama and northern Florida. Bartonia 24: 1-4.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants
of the south. 2 vols. U.S. Forest Service, Tech. Pub. R8-TP2.
Tobe, John D et al. 1998. Florida wetland plants an identification manual. University of Florida,
Gainesville.
White, D.L., T.E. Ostertag, and R.A. Hilsenbeck. 1992. Draft final status survey report for the
panhandle lily (Lilium iridollae Henry). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Agreement
No. 14-16-0004-89-961.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 663

 Scientific Name:
Lindera subcoriacea
Common Name:
Bog Spicebush
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Lindera subcoriacea is endemic to the Southern Coastal Plain and occurs in southeast Virginia,
Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina (Weakley
2004).
Habitat:
L. subcoriacea prefers shrub-dominated seepage wetlands that remain moist or wet year-round
(Gordon et al. 1986). It was first identified in the evergreen peat bogs of southern Mississippi
and southeastern Louisiana (Bridges and Orzell 1989, Wofford 1983). Within the Gulf Coastal
Plain, this species inhabits pitcher plant bogs or quaking bogs on flat ground, and hillside seepage
bogs on moderate slopes. In the more northerly portion of its range, the Sandhill region of the
Carolinas and Georgia, it is found in pocosin swamps - forested wetlands that border stream
headwaters (NatureServe 2008). Habitats are often fire-maintained (Wofford 1983). Soils in the
southern part of this species' range are high in organic matter, acidic, and permanently saturated
(Gordon et al. 1986). Further north, soils are drier but still consistently moist. L. subcoricea
requires significant solar exposure, so limited canopy cover is essential (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
L. subcoriacea is a dioecious, deciduous, perennial shrub; flowering occurs in mid-March and
fruits mature in late fall (Wofford 1983). This species often reproduces clonally, sending out new
shoots to replace older stems (Gordon et al. 1986). Rangewide, it is often found with Magnolia
virginiana, Myrica heterophylla, and Rhus vernix (Bridges and Orzell 1989).
Populations:
Few occurrences of this species remain, and most are of low quality because of small population
size or unequal sex distribution (NatureServe 2008). Because L. subcoriacea reproduces
clonally, most populations have notably low genetic diversity, generally consisting of just 1-5
genetically distinct individuals. There are currently fewer than 115 individuals in Mississippi,
fewer than 150 in North Carolina, and fewer than 50 in the rest of the species' known range
(NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is rapidly declining, largely because of habitat loss,
although establishing longterm trends is challenging as the species was first desecribed in 1983.
Status:
This species is naturally restricted to a small range because of its habitat specificity, and habitat
loss and degradation are driving further range contraction. Remaining populations are very small
and suffer from low genetic diversity, exposing them to the perils faced by all similar
populations: e.g., stochastic extinction, inbreeding depression.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 664

 NatureServe (2008) reports that the bog spicebush is critically imperiled in Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, and Louisiana, imperiled in Mississippi and North Carolina, and vulnerable in South
Carolina. It is listed as endangered in North Carolina and Florida, and is a sensitive species or
species of special concern in several other states where it occurs.
Habitat destruction:
Fire suppression is a major cause of the bog spicebush's decline, as this species' preferred habitat
is maintained by fire. Without periodic fires, shrubs and trees encroach upon L. subcoriacea's
habitat, outcompeting and excluding the spicebush. Prescribed burns have been proposed as a
possible management solution, but as residential and agricultural development fill the longleaf
pine/wiregrass upland areas surrounding swampland habitat, burns become a less viable and less
popular option (NatureServe 2008). Siltation and pollution from development, agriculture, and other
industry (primarily timber
harvesting) degrade and destroy the bog spicebush's habitat, as do dams, diversions, and drainage
of bogs and wetlands. It is estimated that 97 percent of Gulf Coast bog habitats have been
considerably altered or destroyed by anthropogenic activities (Wofford 1983).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
L. subcoriacea has only been recently described (1983) and so has not received as much attention
as its conservation status may warrant. No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this
species. It is listed by the states of Florida and North Carolina as endangered, and as a species of
special concern in several other states, but these designations offer the spicebush no substantial
regulatory protection. Additionally, most populations occur on private lands (NatureServe 2008).
Other factors:
The bog spicebush has high environmental specificity (narrow habitat preferences) and occupies
habitat that is naturally rare; it is therefore highly sensitive to further habitat losses (NatureServe
2008).
References:
Bridges, E.L., and S.L. Orzell. 1989. Lindera subcoriacea (Lauraceae) new to Alabama.
Phytologia 67: 214-216.
Gordon, K.L., R.L. Jones, and J.B. Wiseman, Jr. 1986. Status report - Lindera subcoriacea B.E.
Wofford. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Office, Jackson, Mississippi. 31
pp. + appendix.
USDA. 2009. Lindera subcoriacea B.E. Wofford bog spicebush. United States Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 20 July 2009
<http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=LISU8>.
USFWS. 2009. Species Profile for Lindera subcoriacea. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 20 July
2009 <http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2UJ>.
Weakley, A. S. 2004. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia. Draft as of March 2004.
UNC Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill. Available online:
http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm. Accessed 2004.
Wofford, B.E. 1983. A new Lindera (Lauraceae) from North America. J. Arnold Arboretum 64:
325-331.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 665

 Scientific Name:
Linum westii
Common Name:
West's Flax
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Restricted to northern portion of Florida, this plant occurs in Jackson, Gulf, Franklin, and
possibly Liberty and Bay Counties. Reports from Mississippi and Georgia are thought to be
misidentifications (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant occurs along shallow pond margins within slash pine (Pinus elliottii) - saw palmetto
(Serenoa repens) flatwoods, bogs, wet prairies or depression marshes. It is also found on the
margins of cypress ponds and occasionally in ditches (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This plant is perennial, and is thought to be fire-maintained.
Populations:
Only 14 occurrences of this species were reported as of 1998, all in Florida, but this flax may be
under-reported because of the difficulty of field identification. It is not abundant at any known
location (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that West's flax is declining across its range.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks L. westii as imperiled in Florida, where it is also listed as endangered.
Habitat destruction:
This species' habitat is threatened by wetland conversion to other uses, fire suppression, and the
establishment of timber plantations (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is listed as endangered in Florida, this designation affords West's flax no substantial
regulatory protections; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species or its
habitat.
References:
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 13, 2010)

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 666

 Scientific Name:
Lirceus culveri
Common Name:
Rye Cove Isopod
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Lirceus culveri is confined to the hydrology of McDavids Cave in Scott County, Virginia.
Habitat:
The Rye Cove isopod inhabits gravel or fused gravel substrate in areas of streams marked by
riffles (Estes and Holsinger 1976)
Ecology:
This species is not tolerant of stream perturbance or groundwater pollution (NatureServe 2008).
According to the Va. DCR (1997), “[t]he isopod plays an important role in the ecosystem by
removing bacteria and fine organic matter from the aquifer. It provides a food source for
salamanders, fish and crawfish. Cave isopods also serve as natural indicators of water quality in
that they can survive in only the cleanest karst systems.”
Populations:
This species occurs at a single site. Surveys in other caves and drainages in Rye Cove and
surrounding areas have not produced this species, therefore it is presumed to occur only at the
type locality, McDavids Cave. It is found in large numbers in its proper habitat within the
hydrology of McDavids Cave.
Population Trends:
According to NatureServe(2008), this species is currently stable. Population may fluctuate
naturally but the species is stable providing water quality in its cave system is not degraded.
Status:
Virginia classifies this crayfish as a Species of Special Concern. It was a Federal C2 Candidate
species until that list was abolished. It is ranked by NatureServe (2008) as critically imperiled and
by the IUCN as vulnerable.
Habitat destruction:
Development of Rye Cove or perturbance/pollution of ground or surface water in McDavids Cave
could lead to the decline in population or extinction of this isopod (NatureServe 2008).
The VA DCR (1997) reports that “The Rye Cove isopod is threatened by contamination of the
groundwater flowing into its habitat. In cave country, or karstlands, surface water sinks quickly
into underground channels with minimal natural filtration. Contaminated runoff from landclearing activities can introduce fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and sediment into the cave
system that can travel downstream for thousands of feet, and even for miles. Threats to the water
supply also exist from chemical spills, septic systems, leaking fuel tanks, and debris and trash
dumps.”
This species is also threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005). Mountaintop
removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause significant downstream and groundwater pollution.
Pollutants associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 667

 (Palmer et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders of aquatic
macroinvertebrates (Wood 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to NatureServe (2008), McDavids Cave is privately owned. Acquisition or closing of
McDavids Cave in conjunction with protection of watershed are recommended. No existing
regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Estes, J.A. and J. Holsinger. 1976. A SECOND TROGLOBITIC SPE CIES OF THE GENUS
LIRCEUS (ISOPODA, ASELLIDAE) FROM SOUTHWES TERN VIRGINIA. PROCEEDINGS
OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASH INGTON 89:481-490
Estes, J.A. and J.R. Holsinger. 1976. A second troglobitic species of the genus Lirceus (Isopoda,
Asellidae) from southwestern Virginia. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 89(42):481-490.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Terwilliger, Karen. 1991. Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium held at
Va. Tech. April 1989. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal
notice of review. Federal Register, Department of the Interior 54(4): 554-579.
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. 1997. Lirceus culveri fact sheet. Available
online at http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/documents/Lirceus_culveri.pdf. Last
accessed January 14, 2010.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 668

 Scientific Name:
Lithasia curta
Common Name:
Knobby Rocksnail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
DD - Data deficient

Range:
Historically the Knobby Rocksnail occurred in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee, with records
from Muscle Shoals and adjacent Shoal Creek in Lauderdale County, Alabama (Burch 1989). This
snail has not been detected in Alabama since the construction of Wilson Dam (Mirarchi et al.
2004). The current range of this Tennessee River endemic covers less than 100 square km, as the
species is only known to be extant in the tailwaters of the Kentucky dam, having last been reported
in 1986 (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Habitat:
This species is only known to be extant in the tailwaters of the Kentucky Dam, where the current
is moderate to strong (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Populations:
There is only one known extant population of Knobby Rocksnail, in the tailwaters of the Kentucky
dam (Mirarchi et al. 2004). Total population size for this species is unknown, as is exact
occurrence information (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Knobby Rocksnail has declined very rapidly in the short-term
(50-70 percent decline), and has experienced large long-term decline of 75-90 percent.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Knobby Rocksnail as critically imperiled globally, and as extirpated
in Alabama and Tennessee, and not evaluated in Kentucky. It is classified as data deficient by the
IUCN. It is on the Alabama Natural Heritage Program Tracking List. It was formerly a federal
candidate for ESA protection (FWS 1994).
Habitat destruction:
The majority of the Knobby Rocksnail's habitat has already been lost (NatureServe 2008). Once
distributed in three states, this snail is now extant only in the tailwaters of the Kentucky Dam
(Mirarchi et al. 2004). This snail's habitat in Alabama was destroyed by the construction of
Wilson Dam (NatureServe 2008). Because this species' distribution is already so severely
restricted, it is highly vulnerable to further habitat disturbances.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the Knobby Rocksnail. It is on the
Alabama Natural Heritage Program Tracking List, but this does not convey legal protection. It was
formerly a candidate for ESA protection (FWS 1994).
Other factors:
The Knobby Rocksnail is threatened by any factor which decreases water quality. Because this
species is only known to be extant in a single location, it is vulnerable to stochastic genetic and
environmental events.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 669

 References:
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal
Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. November 15, 1994.
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-SPECIES/1994/November/Day-15/pr-42.html

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 670

 Scientific Name:
Lithasia duttoniana
Common Name:
Helmet Rocksnail
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of the Helmet Rocksnail is less than 100 square km in the Duck River basin in
Tennessee (NatureServe 2008). Van der Schalie (1973) reports that this snail was historically
collected in the Duck River in Marshall, Maury, and Humphreys counties. Bogan and Parmalee
(1983) report this snail from the Harpeth River in Davidson County. Burch (1989) cites two
tributaries to the Duck River in Bedford County, and the Duck River mainstem from Bedford
County to Humphreys County. Dillon (1989) lists occurrences from the Duck River north of
Farmington in Marshall County. The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (2005) lists this
species as occurring in the Upper and Lower Duck mainstems, the Buffalo River Mainstem, and
Eastern Highland Streams.
Habitat:
This snail occupies riffle systems with rocky substrate and has also been detected on bedrock
(NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are from 6-20 populations of this snail. Total population
size is unknown. Bogan and Parmalee (1983) report fewer than 10 localities.
Population Trends:
This species has very rapidly declined (decline of 50-70 percent) in the short-term, and has
experienced a large long-term decline of 75-90 percent (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Helmet Rocksnail is classified as vulnerable by the IUCN. It is ranked as imperiled (G2S2) by
NatureServe 2008.
Habitat destruction:
This snail is threatened by logging, mining, cattle grazing, and oil and natural gas development
(Cumberland HCP 2009). The Northern Cumberlands are threatened by logging and rapid
conversion of native hardwood forests to industrial pine plantations. Almost every coal seam
within the region has undergone some degree of surface mining and surface mining is ongoing. A
large number of mines have been abandoned and cause serious water quality issues. Streams in the
region are threatened by sedimentation and water quality degradation from agriculture and cattle
grazing (Cumberland HCP 2009). Oil and natural gas wells are also prevalent throughout the
region and potentially threaten aquatic habitats (Cumberland HCP 2009). Mussel species in
Eastern Highland Streams where the Helmet Rocksnail occurs have been in decline for several
decades due to instream habitat alterations and poor instream habitat conditions, which likely
threaten this snail as well (Ahlstedt et al. 2004, Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP)
2005). Mollusks in the Upper Duck mainstem are threatened by alteration of flow conditions,
substrate destabilization, and manganese precipitates created by the operation of Normandy
Reservoir (SARP 2005). Aquatic species in the Lower Duck mainstem are threatened by

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 671

 agricultural activities and livestock grazing. Mollusks in the Buffalo River mainstem have
experienced dramatic decline due to siltation, substrate destabilization, and chronic chemical
pollution which are an ongoing threat for mussels there and thus threaten this snail as well
(Ahlstedt et al. 2004, SARP 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect this species.
References:
Ahlstedt, S.A., J.R. Powell, R.S. Butler, M.T. Fagg, D.W. Hubbs, S.F. Novak, S.R. Palmer, and
P.D. Johnson. (2004) Historical and current examination of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in the Duck River basin Tennessee. Contract report for the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency FA-02-14725-00.
Bogan, A.E. and P.W. Parmalee. 1983. Tennessee's Rare Wildlife: Volume II: The Mollusks.
Report to the Tennessee Natural Heritage Program and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.
123 pp.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Cumberland Habitat Conservation Plan. 2009. University of Tennessee.
http://www.cumberlandhcp.org/files/cumberland-hcp-fy05-proposal.pdf Last accessed January
11, 2009.
Dillon, R.T., Jr. 1989. Karyotypic evolution in pleurocerid snails. I. Genomic DNA estimated by
flow cytometry. Malacologia, 31(1): 197-203.
Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership. 2005. Conserving the Duck River: A Plan for
Collaborative Action.
http://southeastaquatics.net/uploads/document/DuckRiverCAP-2005v2.1.pdf Last accessed Jan.
11, 2010.
van der Schalie, H. 1973. The mollusks of the Duck River drainage in central Tennessee.
Sterkiana, 52: 45-56.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 672

 Scientific Name:
Lobelia boykinii
Common Name:
Boykin's Lobelia
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Boykin’s lobelia, Lobelia boykinii, is a perennial herb present in parts of Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Once widespread in the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States, this species has become
increasingly imperiled as a result of the loss of its wetland habitat. It is native to coastal plains
and inhabits cypress-gum depressions of ponds, pine savannahs, clay-based Carolina bays, and
other seasonal or permanent wetland habitat (Godfrey and Wooten 1981).
Populations:
Total population size is unknown, but is estimated to be between 1,500 and 10,000 individuals
(NatureServe 2008). The largest known occurrences contain approximately 1,000 individual
plants.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that population size and resilience of Boykin's lobelia has declined
substantially over recent decades, and continues to decline rapidly.
Status:
This species is restricted to scattered populations in the southeastern Coastal Plain with a few
disjunct occurrences in New Jersey and Delaware. The species' wetland habitats were once
common in the southeast but are now limited in number due to drainage for agriculture and
development. In addition, many southeastern wetlands are threatened by a drawdown in the
regional water table, a result of intensive development over the last 10-20 years. Populations in
New Jersey have declined for unknown reasons.
NatureServe (2008) lists Boykin's lobelia as critically imperiled in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi,
and New Jersey, imperiled in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and extirpated from
Delaware.
Habitat destruction:
This plant's habitat is vulnerable to drainage for irrigation or other human uses (many populations
have been lost this way), and to conversion of habitat to tree farms or agriculture. Habitat is also
threatened by the suppression of natural disturbances that promote succession (Southern
Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002).Though this species was once widely distributed
throughout the mid-Atlantic and southeastern states, the vast majority of its historical range has
been altered or lost, largely because of drainage for agricultural and residential development and
conversion of habitat to agricultural lands (croplands and tree plantations are common)
(NatureServe 2008). It is estimated that over 97 percent of herbaceous seeps and wet savannas,
two types of habitat favored by L. boykinii within the southeastern coastal plain, no longer exist
(Harper et al. 1998). Anthropogenic suppression of natural processes leading to disturbance also
threatens this species’ habitat; natural succession following disturbances opens space for new

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 673

 colonizers and creates the spatial heterogeneity necessary for diverse native plant communities
(NatureServe 2008). The wet savannas where this species thrived historically burned at regular
intervals as a result of lightning strikes, but the 1920s marked the beginning of a period of
widespread fire suppression. This suppression allowed dense forests to develop to the exclusion
of early-successional herbaceous species like L. boykinii (Harper et al. 1998). The creation of
plowlines (fire ditches) interrupts and compromises the hydrology of the ecosystems where L.
boykinii is found (Harper et al. 1998). Livestock grazing and siltation from upland activities may also
threaten this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect Boykin’s lobelia.
Other factors:
Currently, this species is limited to the southeastern coastal plain, with some outlier populations
in Delaware and New Jersey (NatureServe 2008). Because seep and wetland ecosystems are
naturally somewhat rare, populations of species endemic to these ecosystems are naturally small
and often reliant on gene flow among adjacent populations within a landscape (Harper et al. 1998).
Anthropogenic alteration of the landscape, manifested primarily in habitat loss and fragmentation,
exacerbates the vulnerability of these populations to stochastic extinction, inbreeding depression,
and other perils associated with a loss of connectivity among populations. Many remaining
occurrences of L. boykinii are isolated and thus of uncertain long-term viability.
References:
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United
States: Dicotyledons. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.
Harper, M.G., Trame, A., and M.G. Hohmann. 1998. Management of herbaceous seeps and wet
savannas for threatened and endangered species. United States Army Corps of Engineers
Research Laboratories Technical Report 98/70.
LeBlond, R.J., J.O. Fussell, and A.L. Braswell. 1994a. “Inventory of the rare species, natural
communities, and critical areas of the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina.”
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, DPR, Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 4, 2009 ).
Norquist, C. 1985. “Savannas and bogs of the southeastern U.S.: Threatened ecosystems.”
Endangered Species Technical Bulletin, 10(9):4-5.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 674

 Scientific Name:
Ludwigia brevipes
Common Name:
Long Beach Seedbox
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Also known as the Long Beach primrose-willow, this plant is endemic to the eastern Coastal Plain
of the United States: it is found in Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey,
South Carolina, and Virginia (NatureServe 2008). It is known historically from Ocean County in
New Jersey, and from Craven, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Harnett, Hyde, Johnston, Robeson,
Sampson, and Wayne Counties in North Carolina but is considered extirpated from these locales
now, and currently known from Baltimore County in Maryland, from Isle of Wight,
Northumberland, Southhampton and Virginia Beach Counties in Virginia, from Brunswick,
Columbus, and Cumberland Counties in North Carolina, and from one unlisted county in Georgia
(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant inhabits shallow wetlands and the shores of lakes, ponds, marshes, swamps, blackwater
rivers, swales, ditches, and impoundments (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
It is unknown how many extant populations of this species remain or overall population size
(NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Populations are declining, but precise trends are not specified (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists the Long Beach Seedbox as critically imperiled in Arkansas, North
Carolina,and South Carolina, and imperiled in Virginia. It is reportedly extirpated from New
Jersey, and its status is under review in Florida, Georgia, and Maryland. NatureServe (2008)
reports that the Long Beach seedbox is imperiled or critically imperiled throughout its range
because of its rarity and disappearance from historical occurrences.
Habitat destruction:
The Long Beach seedbox has been extirpated in numerous historic locations, though no specific
cause for this range loss is cited (NatureServe 2008). Extensive loss of wetland habitat likely
contributed significantly to this species' decline.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect Ludwigia brevipes. Though it is listed as a
species of special concern in some states (Carroll County Forest Conservation Technical Manual
2007, VA DCR 2001), this attention affords it no significant regulatory protection.
References:
Carroll County, Maryland Forest Conservation Technical Manual. 2007. Carroll County
Commissioners, Westminster County, MD. Accessed online August 13, 2009 <<
http://ccgovernment.carr.org/ccg/resmgmt/forconsmanual.pdf>>

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 675

 NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 11, 2009).
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation: Division of Natural Heritage. 2001.
Conservation Plan for the Southern Watershed Area. Richmond, VA. Accessed online August
13, 2009 << http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/documents/15-SWAMP-2001.pdf>>

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 676

 Scientific Name:
Ludwigia ravenii
Common Name:
Raven's Seedbox
G Rank:
G1
Range:
Also known as Raven's primrose-willow, Ludwigia ravenii is reported from a patchy distribution
within the Coastal Plain area of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida
(NatureServe 2008, Chafin 2000). Reports from Georgia are not confirmed. Most historical
occurrences are now thought to be extirpated.
Habitat:
This plant occurs in open, wet, peaty habitat, usually at the margins of swamps, ponds, or bogs. It
is a wetland obligate (Peng 1984). This plant is frequently encountered in utility corridors,
roadside verges, and ditches (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This plant is perennial, flowers from July-September, and fruits August-October (Peng 1984).
Populations:
There are currently ten or fewer known occurrences of this plant, and populations are generally
small (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) determined that L. ravenii is experiencing moderate declines in the short
term, but does not report long-term trends. Based on the disappearance of numerous historical
occurrences, it seems that long-term trends are also indicative of a substantial decline.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks L. ravenii as critically imperiled in Florida, North Carolina, and
Virginia, and unrated in South Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
Raven's seedbox is threatened by habitat loss from drainage or other hydrological alteration, and
conversion of its habitat to timber plantations and agricultural uses. Populations in disturbed
habitat (e.g., ditches, utility corridors) are vulnerable to continued disturbance, herbicide use, and
excavation or other construction (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect the Raven's seedbox.
Other factors:
Because this plant is self-compatible and frequently autogamous, its long-term viability may be
compromised by low genetic diversity (Peng 1984)
References:
Chafin, L. G. 2000. Field guide to the rare plants of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory,
Tallahassee.
Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada,
and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 677

 NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed
February 2, 2010).
Peng, C.I. 1984. Ludwigia ravenii (Onagraceae), a new species from the Coastal Plain of the
southeastern United States. Systematic Botany. 9(2): 129-132.
Weakley, A.S. 1996. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia: working draft of 23 May 1996. The
Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Southern Conservation Science Dept., Chapel
Hill, North Carolina. Unpaginated.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 678

 Scientific Name:
Ludwigia spathulata
Common Name:
Spathulate Seedbox
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Also known as the spoon primrose-willow, L. spathulata is endemic to the southeastern United
States and occurs in a small range in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama (NatureServe
2008). Natural heritage records place this species in Alabama's Covington, Geneva, Houston, and
Mobile Counties, in Georgia's Baker and Meriwether Counties (extirpated from Decatur County),
and in South Carolina's Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell, Richland, and Saluda Counties (NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
This species is found in periods of low water in exposed habitat around sinkhole ponds, cypressgum bogs, and depression meadows (NatureServe 2008, Godfrey and Wooten 1981).
Ecology:
This plant is perennial, reproduces vegetatively and probably self-pollinates (Chafin 2008).
Populations:
Five occurrences are known in Georgia, few in Alabama and Florida, and more in South Carolina's
Aiken Plateau, but size of individual occurrences is not reported (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
This plant is rare and declining across its range largely because of habitat loss and degradation
(Chafin 2008)
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Alabama and Florida, and
imperiled in Georgia and South Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
Threats to L. spathulata include clearing, drainage, and filling of wetland habitat or other activities
that alter local hydrological patterns, fire suppression, conversion of wetland habitat to timber
plantations, fragmentation by agriculture and silviculture, and numerous other direct or incidental
effects of human activity (Southeastern Species Viability Project 2002, Chafin 2008). Its
Carolina bay habitat is especially vulnerable as a target for in-filling to support various land-use
practices (B. Sorrie pers. comm. as cited in NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Chafin (2008) reports that four occurrences in Georgia are protected, but others are susceptible to
the threats previously discussed. No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the
spathulate seedbox or its habitat.
References:
Chafin, L. G. 2008. Species account for Ludwigia spathulata for Georgia Department of Natural
Resources website.
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/georgiaanimalsandplants_conservation.aspx

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 679

 Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United
States: Dicotyledons. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 15, 2010)
Sorrie, Bruce. Consultant, Longleaf Environmental. Whispering Pines, NC 28327
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. 1996. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia: working draft of 23 May 1996. The
Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Southern Conservation Science Dept., Chapel
Hill, North Carolina. Unpaginated.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 680

 Scientific Name:
Lythrum curtissii
Common Name:
Curtis' Loosestrife
G Rank:
G1
Range:
Curtis' loosestrife is a rare plant endemic to the Florida panhandle and southwestern Georgia - it
is confirmed from Liberty, Franklin, and Gadsden Counties and reported in Bay, Calhoun, and
Levy Counties in Florida, and confirmed in Calhoun, Decatur, Early, and Miller Counties,
Georgia. Total range size is likely less than 100 square miles (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant is found in silt, fine sand, peat bogs, seeps, and clearings on the edges of acidic or
calcareous swamps, karst ponds, floodplains, or streambanks (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Curtis' loosestrife is a perennial herb with a shrub-like form that flowers from June to August
(NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Eight occurrence records exist for Florida, though one has not been confirmed since 1954, and 4
exist for Georgia. Populations at some sites were comprised of between 50 to 200 individuals
(NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is in severe decline as a result of habitat loss.
Status:
This species has a small range within which few occurrences are known, and is experiencing major
decline because of extensive habitat loss. NatureServe (2008) reports that the species is
critically imperiled in both Florida and Georgia.
Habitat destruction:
The severe decline of Curtis's loosestrife is attributed to extensive habitat loss: clearcutting,
conversion of natural habitat to timber plantations, dams, diversions, or other anthropogenic
alterations of regional hydrology, and agricultural and residential development are among the
primary activities responsible for this loss (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.
References:
Allison, J.R. 1991. The status of Cacalia diversifolia and Lythrum curtissii in southwestern
Georgia. Unpublished report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida.
Clewell, A.F. 1985. Guide to vascular plants of the Florida panhandle. Florida State Univ. Press,
Tallahassee, Florida. 605 pp.
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United
States: Dicotyledons. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 681

 Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada,
and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia: an information
manual on plants designated by the State of Georgia as endangered, threatened, rare, or unusual.
Georgia Dept. Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Natural Heritage
Program, Social Circle, Georgia. 218 pp + appendices.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 682

 Scientific Name:
Lythrum flagellare
Common Name:
Lowland Loosestrife
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This plant is restricted to an increasingly small range in peninsular Florida. It has been recently
confirmed in Charlotte, Collier, Dade, DeSoto, Glades, Henry, Lee, Manatee, Okechobee, and
Sarasota Counties (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Lowland loosestrife is found in muck or sand-peat-muck soil along the margins of ponds and
cypress depressions or other similar habitat (Kral 1983).
Ecology:
This plant is perennial.
Populations:
No comprehensive survey data are available for this species.
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this species, but it is likely in decline as a result of
widespread habitat loss (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that L. flagellare is imperiled in Florida, where it is also listed as
state-endangered.
Habitat destruction:
Much of the habitat used by L. flagellare has been destroyed by drainage or other alterations to
regional hydrology, logging, and fire suppression (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is listed as endangered in Florida, this designation offers L. flagellare no substantial
regulatory protections; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species or its
habitat.
References:
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United
States: Dicotyledons. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed
December 17, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 683

 Scientific Name:
Macbridea caroliniana
Common Name:
Carolina Birds-in-a-nest
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Also known as the Carolina bog-mint, M. caroliniana ranges across the southern Coastal Plain
from southeastern North Carolina to southern Georgia; reports from Florida, Alabama, and
Missisippi are not confirmed (LeBlond 2002). Natural heritage records indicate it is present in
Georgia's Berrien, Marion, McDuffie, and Richmond Counties, in North Carolina's Bladen,
Brunswick, Columbus, Harnett, Johnston, Jones, Pender, Robeson, and Sampson Counties, and in
South Carolina's Aiken, Barnell, Colleton, Dillon, Edgefield, Florence, Hampton, Jasper, Marion,
Richland, and Williamsburg Counties (NatureServe 2008). It has been extirpated from some of
its historical range.
Habitat:
Carolina birds-in-a-nest are found in wet longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) or pond pine (P. serotina)
savannas, and in blackwater swamp forests with swamp blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), red maple
(Acer rubrum), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), in Atlantic wide cedar swamps, and in
roadside ditches within the above habitats (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This perennial herb flowers mid-July through September (or first frost) (NatureServe 2008). This
species is not autogamous and is dependent on pollinators to set fruit (Weeks 2009).
Populations:
A 2001 USFWS survey (LeBlond and Sorrie 2002) found 36 occurrences, three in Georgia, 15 in
South Carolina, and 18 in North Carolina; two more populations were found in South Carolina in
2003-2004 - one contained approximately 6,000 stems and the other close to 200 (DeGarady
2006). This species' rarity is particularly remarkable because its preferred habitat is so common
(NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) determined that many but not all populations of M. caroliniana are declining;
the species was absent from several historical sites in recent surveys and up to one-third of
rangewide populations may already have been lost to habitat loss (LeBlond and Sorrie 2002).
Status:
This species occurs sporadically across the southern Coastal Plain, and many populations are in
decline as a result of habitat loss and degradation. NatureServe (2008) ranks the Carolina birds-ina-nest as critically imperiled in Georgia, imperiled in North Carolina, and vulnerable in South
Carolina. The species is listed as threatened in North Carolina, as a species of special concern in
South Carolina, and rare in Georgia.
Habitat destruction:
Though its preferred habitat type (swamp forest) is extensive, human impacts are significant;
logging and correspondent declines in water quality, silvicultural plantations, and fire suppression
are cited as the primary threats to the Carolina birds-in-a-nest (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 684

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Six populations, including the largest populations and highest-quality habitat, occur on federal
lands (the largest is found in Congaree National Park), but may still be vulnerable to human
activities if management for their viability is not the highest priority (NatureServe 2008, Weeks
2009). Though it is listed as threatened in North Carolina and as a species of special concern in
South Carolina, these designations offer M. caroliniana no substantial regulatory protections.
Other factors:
Rooting activity by feral hogs may harm this species and/or its habitat in some areas (Weeks
2009).
References:
Chafin, L., Hancock, J.C., Nourse, H., and C. Nourse. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of
Georgia. University of Georgia Press, 526 pp.
DeGarady, D. Mead Westvaco and TNC cooperative research: The impacts of intensive forest
management on Macbridea caroliniana. Progress Report. The Nature Conservancy -South
Caroling Chapter. Nov. 3, 2006.
LeBlond, R. J. and B. A. Sorrie. 2001. Additions to and noteworthy records for the flora of the
Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Castanea 66: 288-302.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
November 30, 2009 ).
Weakley, A.S. 1996. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia: working draft of 23 May 1996. The
Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Southern Conservation Science Dept., Chapel
Hill, North Carolina. Unpaginated.
Weeks, K.F. 2009. Population ecology of the floodplain herb Macbridea caroliniana
(Lamiaceae) with investigations on the species' habitat, breeding system, and genetic diversity.
PhD dissertation, Clemson University, 115pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 685

 Scientific Name:
Macromia margarita
Common Name:
Mountain River Cruiser
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
This dragonfly is recorded from Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
and Virginia (Roble 1997).It was formerly thought to be endemic to the southern Appalachians
(Carle in Terwilliger 1991), but several recent records exist for the Piedmont of North Carolina
as well as west-central Tennessee and northwestern Alabama (Roble 1997). Morse et al. in Benz
and Collins (1997) reported that this species is known from only 6 or 7 localities, but Roble
(1997) listed twice that many recent records.
Habitat:
M. margarita lives in small streams to large rivers, usually rocky but with silt deposits. Typical
habitat is small mountain streams but it is also recorded from several Piedmont localities in
North Carolina. The eggs are scattered in water, larvae sprawl among bottom debris, and adults
forage widely. This species is associated with forested watersheds and is an indicator of high
water quality, being less tolerant of pollution than its congeners.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are fewer than 20 occurrences known, but more may be
discovered. This dragonfly is abundant in appropriate habitat and is a fast-flying species that is
difficult to capture.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is probably declining as water quality is degraded.
Exact population data are not available, but NatureServe reports a large to moderate long-term
decline of 25-90 percent for this species.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Georgia and Virginia, imperiled
in North Carolina and Tennessee, and not rated in Alabama or South Carolina. It was a Federal C-2
Candidate Species until that list was abolished.
Habitat destruction:
The Mountain River cruiser is more intolerant of pollution than its congeners and is an indicator
of high habitat quality. Degradation of water quality is the primary threat to its survival and it is
specifically threatened by siltation and pollution of rivers by logging, second home development,
and pesticide runoff. This species is associated with forested watersheds and logging is thus a
primary threat.
Individuals of M. margarita and its habitat were likely impacted by the Upper Creek Timber Sale
on the Grandfather Ranger District of the Pisgah National Forest (USFS 2005). The same is true
of the Old House Gap timber sale on the same Ranger District (USFS 2006).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 686

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This dragonfly occurs on National Forests, but occurrence on public lands does not necessarily
protect this species from the impacts of logging and herbicide applications.
References:
Benz, G. W. and D. E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern
Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1. Lenz Design &
Communications, Decatur, Georgia. 554 pp.
Bick, G.H. 1983. Odonata at risk in conterminous United States and Canada. Odonatologica 12
(3):209-226.
Needham, James G., and Minter J. Westfall, Jr. 1954. A Manual of the Dragonflies of North
America (Anisoptera). University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 615 p.
Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum
of Natural History University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper Number 56:86 pp.
Roble, S. M. 1997. Status survey for the mountain river cruiser (MACROMIA MARGARITA) in
Virginia, and a rangewide assessment of the status of the species. Natural Heritage Technical
Report 97-17. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural
Heritage, Richmond. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 9 pp.
Terwilliger, Karen. 1991. Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium held at
Va. Tech. April 1989. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Environmental Assessment, Upper Creek Project. Available online at
http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/grandfather/upper_creek_ea.pdf. :Last accessed March 10,
2010.
U.S. Forest Service. 2006. Environmental Assessment, Old House Gap Project. Available online
at http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/grandfather/old_house_gap_ea.pdf. Last accessed March
20, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 687

 Scientific Name:
Marshallia grandiflora
Common Name:
Large-flowered Barbara's-buttons
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The large-flowered Barbara’s buttons is a perennial herb endemic to the central Appalachians
(also known as the Monongahela Barbara’s buttons, NatureServe 2008). It occurs in Kentucky,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia, and is considered extirpated from North
Carolina. Its present range includes Fayette, Somerset and Allegheny Counties in Pennsylvania,
Barbour, Nicholas, Preston, Randolph, Upshur, Greenbrier, Fayette, Webster, Summers, Marion,
and Monongahela Counties in West Virginia, McCreary County in Kentucky, Morgan, Roane and
Scott Counties in Tennessee, and Garrett County in Maryland (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
It is found along the flood-scoured banks of large, fast-flowing rivers or creeks, along lakeshores,
and on bluffs or flood plains. It prefers moist sandy soil, sand or cobbled alluvial matter, and also
grows in bedrock crevices (NatureServe 2008). It is somewhat shade-tolerant, but grows best in
full sunlight (pers. comm. as cited in NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are up to 80 occurrences of this species across its range
of 11 watersheds. Many remaining populations are considered marginally viable as they are
isolated by 1.5 km or more of unsuitable habitat and comprised of only a few individuals.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that populations are generally considered stable, though many have
not been evaluated recently.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists the Large-flowered Barbara's buttons as critically imperiled in Kentucky
and Pennsylvania, imperiled in Tennessee and West Virginia, and possibly extirpated from North
Carolina. Its status is under review in Maryland. This species is state-listed as threatened in West
Virginia and endangered in Tennessee.
Habitat destruction:
The most significant threats to this species are changes to hydrological flow and flood regime:
floods provide the necessary scouring and deposition of sand and gravel that maintains their
preferred riverbank habitat (NatureServe 2008). Flood control projects threaten many major
populations (NatureServe 2008). Protection from anthropogenic disturbance is essential, as the
effects of recreation (particularly motorized recreation) can destroy these fragile populations. All
historically documented populations in North Carolina have been extirpated (NatureServe 2008).
This species is also threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005). In mountaintop
removal, over 1000 feet of mountain can be blown up and dumped into adjacent streams, which
annihilates this plant and its habitat.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms afford adequate protection to Marshallia grandiflora. Though it

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 688

 is listed as threatened or endangered in some states in which it occurs, these designations do not
significantly protect the large-flowered Barbara’s buttons from the activities that threaten it,
particularly altered hydrologic regime.
References:
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 11, 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 689

 Scientific Name:
Marstonia agarhecta
Common Name:
Ocmulgee Marstonia
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
The range of the Ocmulgee Marstonia is less than 100 square km in Georgia (NatureServe 2008).
This species occurs in Bluff Creek, a tributary of the Ocmulgee River (Thompson 1969, Hershler
1994, Burch 1989) and at House Spring in Wilcox County, 30 km southeast of Bluff Creek
(Watson 1999, 2000, Dillon et al. 2006).
Habitat:
This snail occurs on silt, diatomaceous ooze, or submerged logs and leaves (O'Connor 1975,
Watson 2000).
Populations:
There are two populations of this species, and it is abundant within its limited range (NatureServe
2008).
Population Trends:
A new population of this species was recently detected, making the population trend for this snail
increasing (Watson 2000).
Status:
The Ocmulgee Marstonia is critically imperiled (G1S1) (NatureServe 2008). It is classified as
endangered by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources (2009) reports that the spring habitats this species is
associated with are threatened by development and groundwater pumping. The Wilcox County
Comprehensive Plan (2005) reports that sensitive habitat areas, such as the habitats which harbor
this snail, are increasingly threatened by the encroachment of people and development, by the sale
of riverfront acreage from timber companies to developers, and by improperly sited or
improperly operated septic tanks. Sedimentation from logging in riparian areas also potentially
threatens this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect this species, and no occurrences are
appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Dillon, R.T., Jr., W.K. Reeves, and T.W. Stewart. 2006 [2007]. The freshwater gastropods of
Georgia. Created 26 August 2003. Last updated September 2007. Available online:
http://www.cofc.edu/~fwgna/FWGGA/index.html.
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources. 2009. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 690

 Species Technical Team Reports Appendix B. Available at:
http://www1.gadnr.org/cwcs/PDF/Appendix_B.pdf Last accessed Jan. 20, 2010.
Hershler, R. 1994. A review of the North American freshwater snail genus Pyrgulopsis
(Hydrobiidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 554: 1-115.
Hershler, R. and F.G. Thompson. 1987. North American Hydrobiidae (Gastropoda: Rissoacea):
redescription and the systematic relationships of Tryonia Stimpson, 1865 and Pyrgulopsis Call
and Pilsbry, 1886. The Nautilus, 101(1): 25-32.
O'Connor, Howard J. 1975. Letter of Jan 2, 1975 to Joe D. T anner, Commissioner, DNR,
Atlanta, GA from Howard J. Connor.
Thompson, F.G. 1969. Some hydrobiid snails from Georgia and Florida. Quarterly Journal of the
Florida Academy of Science, 32: 241-265.
Thompson, F.G. and R. Hershler. 2002. Two genera of North American freshwater snails:
Marstonia Baker, 1926, resurrected to generic status, and Floridobia, new genus (Prosobranchia:
Hydrobiidae: Nymphophilinae). The Veliger, 45(3): 269-271.
Watson, C.N. 1999. Results of a survey for selected species of Hydrobiidae in Georgia and
Florida [abstract]. Page 27 in Program Guide and Abstracts. The First Symposium of the
Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society, Chattanooga, Tennessee, March 17-19, 1999.
Watson, C.N., Jr. 2000. Results of a survey for selected species of Hydrobiidae (Gastropoda) in
Georgia and Florida. Pages 233-244 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J.
Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings.
Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.
Wilcox County Comprehensive Plan Executive and Local Planning and Coordination
Committees. 2005. The Joint Wilcox County Comprehensive Plan.
http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/PlanningQualityGrowth/programs/documents/WilcoxCo
.AbbevilleCi.PineviewCi.PittsCi.RochelleCi.Old.pdf Last accessed Jan. 20, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 691

 Scientific Name:
Marstonia castor
Common Name:
Beaverpond Marstonia
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
DD - Data deficient

Range:
The total range of the Beaverpond Marstonia consists of less than 4 square km in a single creek in
Georgia (NatureServe 2008). This snail is only known from the type locality, Cedar Creek in
Crisp County in the Flint River drainage (Burch 1989, Watson 2000).
Habitat:
This snail's only known habitat is a quiet, clear, cold creek where it is found on aquatic plants
(O'Connor 1975).
Populations:
There is only one known population of this species, and population size is unknown but low
(NatureServe 2008). A survey of 22 sites on tributaries of the Flint River between Andersonville
and Albany, Georgia were unsuccessful in detecting additional populations of this species
(Watson 2000).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this snail is very rapidly declining (decline of 50-70 percent) in
the short term, and has experienced a long-term decline of 75 to over 90 percent.
Status:
This snail is critically imperiled (G1S1) (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
Because the total known global range of this snail consists of less than four square kilometers, it
is extremely vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation. The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources
(GDNR 2009) reports that this species' Southeastern Plains habitat is threatened by agriculture,
withdrawal of ground and surface waters, development, recreation, and dams. Agriculture and
other ground-disturbing activities result in erosion and degradation of water quality. Groundwater
and surface water withdrawals for agriculture substantially reduce stream flow, and agriculture
contributes to nutrient and silt loading which stresses aquatic organisms (GDNR 2009).
Development increases sediment levels in streams (GDNR 2009). Unmanaged recreation and
ATV use destabilizes streambanks, increases sedimentation, pollutes water with fuel, and crushes
aquatic organisms outright (GDNR 2009). Dams and other structures which alter stream flows on
the Southeastern Plains cause significant problems for high priority species such as this snail
(GDNR 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the Beaverpond Marstonia. This snail is
considered to be a high priority species for conservation by the state of Georgia, but this does not
convey any regulatory protection.
Other factors:
This snail is threatened by water pollution from many sources. Because this species exists as a
single population, it is vulnerable to extinction from stochastic genetic and environmental events.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 692

 References:
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources. 2009. Southeastern Plains. Available at:
http://www1.gadnr.org/cwcs/PDF/12_SoutheasternPlains.pdf Last accessed Jan. 6, 2009.
O'Connor, Howard J. 1975. Letter of Jan 2, 1975 to Joe D. T anner, Commissioner, DNR,
Atlanta, GA from Howard J. Connor.
Watson, C.N., Jr. 2000. Results of a survey for selected species of Hydrobiidae (Gastropoda) in
Georgia and Florida. Pages 233-244 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J.
Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings.
Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 693

 Scientific Name:
Marstonia ozarkensis
Common Name:
Ozark Pyrg
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
DD - Data deficient

Range:
The range of this species is less than 100 square km on the Arkansas-Missouri border (Hershler
1994, NatureServe 2008). It survives in a single location on the North Fork of the White River
above Norfolk.
Populations:
There is only one surviving population of this species and it occurs on the North Fork of the
White River in Ozark County, Missouri (Wu et al. 1997, NatureServe 2008). This species has not
been detected at other localities despite search efforts (MO NHP, pers. comm., November 2006
cited in NatureServe 2008). This snail has likely been extirpated from all former sites in Arkansas
including the type locality (Wu et al. 1997).
Population Trends:
This species has severely declined in the short term, with a decline of more than 70 percent, and
has declined by more than 90 percent in the long term (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This snail is classified as critically imperiled in Arkansas (S1?) and not assessed in Missouri
(SNA) (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
With only one surviving population in Missouri, this snail is exceedingly vulnerable to habitat
degradation. This snail has likely been extirpated from all former sites in Arkansas (Wu et al.
1997). The Missouri Dept. of Conservation (2001) reports that the North Fork of the White River
watershed is threatened by water quality degradation due to high fecal coliform levels, nutrient
loading, and sediment/gravel deposition. Activities such as gravel dredging, indiscriminate land
clearing, livestock grazing in riparian zones, and contamination from septic systems and municipal
discharges all threaten this species' habitat (Missouri Dept. of Conservation 2001). Mining is
also a threat to the Arkansas Mudalia. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Geology and Land Survey has identified 23 active mines and 137 past producers within the North
Fork Watershed in Missouri, including gravel removal operations, limestone quarries, and iron
mines, all of which threaten water quality (Missouri Dept. of Conservation 2010).
Recreational activities and developments also threaten this snail. The North Fork Watershed is
heavily used for fishing and floating. Bank and shoreline development continues to occur in some
areas on the major streams of the watershed, with housing construction on the North Fork River
downstream of the Mark Twain National Forest being one example. Problems associated with
recreational activities and developments include destabilization of stream banks and flood plains
due to vegetation removal, increased sediment loading, and water quality impacts from poorly
treated sewage (Missouri Dept. of Conservation 2010).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 694

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect this species.
References:
Hershler, R. 1994. A review of the North American freshwater snail genus Pyrgulopsis
(Hydrobiidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 554: 1-115.
Hershler, R. and F.G. Thompson. 1987. North American Hydrobiidae (Gastropoda: Rissoacea):
redescription and the systematic relationships of Tryonia Stimpson, 1865 and Pyrgulopsis Call
and Pilsbry, 1886. The Nautilus, 101(1): 25-32.
Missouri Dept. of Conservation. 2001. North Fork of the White River Watershed Inventory and
Assessment. Available at: http://mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/northfrk/contents/ Last accessed
Jan. 4, 2009.
Missouri Dept. of Conservation. 2009. Missouri Species of Conservation Concern.
http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/145.pdf
Thompson, F.G. and R. Hershler. 2002. Two genera of North American freshwater snails:
Marstonia Baker, 1926, resurrected to generic status, and Floridobia, new genus (Prosobranchia:
Hydrobiidae: Nymphophilinae). The Veliger, 45(3): 269-271.
Wu, S.-K., R.D. Oesch, and M.E. Gordon. 1997. Missouri Aquatic Snails. Natural History Series,
No. 5. Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson, Missouri. 97 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 695

 Scientific Name:
Medionidus conradicus
Common Name:
Cumberland Moccasinshell
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The total range of the Cumberland Moccasinshell encompasses 250-1000 square km in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia (NatureServe 2008). This mussel
occurs in the Tennessee River drainage in Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama, and in Cumberland
river drainages in Kentucky and Tennessee including the Duck River (Burch 1975, Johnson 1977,
Parmalee and Bogan 1998). Johnson (1977) listed this species in the Powell River drainage in
Virginia, Clinch River drainage in Virginia and Tennessee, Holston River drainage in Virginia and
Tennessee, French Broad River drainage in North Carolina, Little River drainage in Tennessee,
Little Tennessee River drainage in Tennessee, Hiwassee River drainage in Tennessee,
Chickamauga Creek drainage in Georgia, Paint Rock River drainage in Alabama, Flint River
drainage in Alabama, Elk River drainage in Tennessee, Blue Water Creek drainage in Alabama,
Shoals Creek drainage in Alabama, Tennessee River drainage in Alabama, Duck River drainage in
Tennessee, Rockcastle River drainage in Kentucky, Cumberland River drainage in Kentucky,
South Fork drainage in Kentucky, Beaver Creek drainage in Kentucky, Obey River drainage in
Tennessee, Roaring River drainage in Tennessee, Caney Fork drainage in Tennessee, Stones River
drainage in Tennessee, and Red River drainage in Kentucky.
In the Cumberland drainage, this mussel occurs downstream of Cumberland Falls in Kentucky and
Tennessee (Cicerello et al. 1991, Parmalee and Bogan 1998). In the Tennessee River drainage, it
occurs from eastern Tennessee, southwest Virginia, and western North Carolina downstream to
Muscle Shoals (Ahlstedt 1992, Parmalee and Bogan 1998). In the Alabama and Mobile Basin,
Williams et al. (2008) state that this species probably occurred in the Tennessee River across
northern Alabama, but that the only records are from Muscle Shoals and from tributaries to the
Tennessee. In Alabama, it is known to be extant only in a tributary of Spring Creek in Colbert
County, and in the Paint Rock River System (Williams et al. 2008).
Habitat:
This mussel inhabits sand and gravel substrates in small streams, generally in headwaters, and can
be found under rocks or in cracks (Johnson 1977, Parmalee and Bogan 1998). Mirarchi et al.
(2004) describe its habitat as "usually moderate to strong current, generally in small streams to
medium rivers, and often under large, flat rocks (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). However, its
presence at Muscle Shoals, prior to impoundment of Tennesseee River (Ortmann 1925) indicates
ability to exist in large rivers under certain conditions" (p. 64).
Ecology:
This mussel is a long-term brooder which spawns in July, with females exhibiting slow, continual,
long-term discharge. Females brood mature glochidia from September through late May.
Glochidia are present in stream drift during every month but July and August. Fish hosts include
rainbow, fantale, redline, and striped darters (Mirarchi et al. 2004).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 696

 Populations:
This mussel is known from Citico Creek, inside and adjacent to the Cherokee National Forest in Monroe
County, Tennessee (Johnson et al. 2005). It occurs in Powell, Clinch, Holston, Emory, Watauga,
Little Pigeon, Little Tennessee, Tellico, Duck, and Little Rivers, Conasauga Creek (Hiwassee
River basin), main Tennessee River, and various small streams in upper east Tennessee, and in the
Cumberland River basin in the Obey, Collins, Roaring, West Fork Stones, and Stones Rivers
(Parmalee and Bogan 1998). It occurs occassionally to sporadically in the lower and upper
Cumberland River below Cumberland Falls in Kentucky (Cicerello and Schuster 2003). In
Alabama, it is known to be extant only in the Paint Rock River system, and Foxtrap Creek in
Colbert County (Mirarchi et al. 2004). In Virginia, this mussel was recently detected in the upper
Clinch (Jones et al. 2001) and in Copper Creek in the Upper Clinch drainage (Fraley and Ahlstedt
2000). Jones and Neves (2007) report its occurrence in the upper North Fork Holston River in Virginia
as river kilometers 135.8 to 190.7. Total population size of this species is unknown.
Population Trends:
The Cumberland Moccasinshell is declining in the short term (decline of 10-30 percent), and
moderately declining in the long term (decline of 25 - 50 percent). This bivalve was common in
the upper and lower Tennessee and Cumberland River systems before impoundments including
just below Cumberland Falls (1948) and Beaver Creek and the Rockcastle River as far up as
Laurel Fork (Johnson 1977). This mussel is extirpated in Georgia and in North Carolina where it
formerly occurred in Buncombe Co. in the French Broad River (LeGrand et al. 2006), and there is
evidence of decline in some Tennessee River drainages (NatureServe 2008). Garner (2008)
reports that the viability of the Foxtrap Creek population is questionable.
Status:
The Cumberland Moccasinshell is critically imperiled in Alabama, extirpated in Georgia and
North Carolina, vulnerable in Tennessee and Virginia, and apparently secure in Kentucky, though
Cicerello and Schuster (2003) describe its Kentucky distribution as occasional to sporadic
(NatureServe 2008). It is ranked as Near Threatened by the IUCN. It is a Species of Greatest
Conservation Need in Alabama and Kentucky. It is ranked as special concern/vulnerable by the
American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that the Cumberland Moccasinshell is vulnerable to extirpation due to
susceptibility to habitat degradation. Threats to this species' habitat include impoundment,
sedimentation, and mining for gravel and coal (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, USFWS 2003).
Impoundment acts as a barrier to dispersal, blocks recolonization following population
extirpation, isolates populations, inundates habitat, and alters water quality. Sedimentation,
resulting from agriculture, forestry, storm water runoff, and other factors, interferes with
respiration and feeding and can smother populations. Gravel mining directly destroys mussel
habitat and coal mining introduces sediment and pollutants (NatureServe 2008). Warren et al.
(2001) report that in the Little South Fork this mussel is threatened by strip mining and additional
impacts. Mussels in the Little South Fork are also threatened by oil extraction (Warren and Haag
2005). The Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources (2005) reports that this mussel is
threatened by aquatic habitat degradation from gravel and sand quarrying and from point and nonpoint source pollution from acid mine drainage and agricultural runoff, and from siltation and
increased turbidity resulting from coal mining, agriculture, road construction, urbanization, and
recreation. The Alabama Natural Heritage Program (2003) identifies nonpoint source pollution as a
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 697

 threat to aquatic species in the Paint Rock River watershed.
Disease or predation:
Neves and Odom (1989) cite muskrat predation as a threat to imperiled mussels in the North Fork
of the Holston in Virginia.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Cumberland Moccasinshell, and it is
unknown whether any occurrences are appropriately protected (NatureServe 2008). In Tennessee
there is an occurrence of this mussel in Citico Creek, inside and adjacent to the Cherokee National
Forest in Monroe Co., (Johnson et al. 2005), but this does not provide habitat protection. It is a
Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama and Kentucky, but this does not provide any
regulatory protection. It has no special status in Tennessee or Virginia.
Other factors:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that the Cumberland Moccasinshell is vulnerable to extirpation due to
limited distribution and rarity. Any factor which degrades water quality threatens this species
including toxic pollution, altered pH, and heavy metals from mining waste, industry spills, urban
runoff, and agriculture (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, USFWS 2003). The North Fork of the Holston
River has been severely impacted by mercury releases (Stansberry and Clench 1975, Neves 1991
in Flebbe et al. 1996). This mussel is threatened by accidental chemical spills. In 2004, 657
individuals of this species were estimated to be killed in the Clinch River when a tanker trunk
overturned and released 1,350 gallons of toxic liquid that killed wildlife for seven miles
downstream (FWS 2004).
References:
Ahlstedt, S.A. 1992a. Twentieth century changes in the freshwater mussel fauna of the Clinch
River (Tennessee and Virginia). Walkerana (for 1991) 5(13):73-122.
Ahlstedt, S.A. 1992b. Cumberlandian Mollusk Conservation Program. Activity 1: mussel surveys
in six Tennessee Valley streams. Walkerana (for 1991) 5(13):123-160.
Alabama Natural Heritage Program. 2003. Paint Rock River Watershed Nonpoint Source
Pollution. A Report Prepared for the Alabama Department of Environmental Management by The
Nature Conservancy. Accessed Jan. 25, 2010 at: www.alnhp.org/reports/PRRW_rpt.pdf
Burch, J.B. 1975. Freshwater unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America.
Malacological Publications: Hamburg, Michigan. 204 pp.
Cicerello, R.R. and G.A. Schuster. 2003. A guide to the freshwater mussels of Kentucky.
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series, 7: 1-62.
Cicerello, R.R., M.L. Warren, Jr., and G.A. Schuster. 1991. A distributional checklist of the
freshwater unionids of Kentucky. American Malacological Bulletin 8(2):113-129.
Flebbe, P.A., J. Harrison, G. Kappesser, D. Melgaard, J. Riley, and L.W. Swift Jr. 1996. Status of
Aquatic Resources: part 1 of 2, pp. 15-63. In Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere
(SAMAB). The Southern Appalachian Assessment Aquatics Technical Report. Report 2 of 5.
USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.
Fraley, S.J. and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2000. The recent decline of the native mussels (Unionidae) of Copper
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 698

 Creek, Russell and Scott Counties, Virginia. Pages 189-195 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I.
Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater
Mollusk Symposia Proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.
Garner, J.T. 2008. Priority Mussels. Alabama Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources.
Accessed Jan. 25, 2010 at: http://www.outdooralabama.com/watchablewildlife/what/inverts/mollusks/mussels/prioritymussels.pdf
Johnson, P.D., C. St. Aubin, and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2005. Freshwater mussel survey results for the
Cherokee and Chattahoochee districts of the United States Forest Service in Tennessee and
Georgia. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama. 32 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1977. Monograph of the genus Medionidus (Bivalvia: Unionidae) mostly from the
Apalachicolan region, southeastern United States. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 4(56): 161187.
Jones, J.W. and R.J. Neves. 2007. Freshwater mussel status: Upper North Fork Holston River,
Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist, 14(3): 471-480.
Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy. Accessed Jan. 25, 2010 at:
http://www.kdfwr.state.ky.us/kfwis/stwg/Volume%20II/Bivalvia/Bivalvia.htm#691
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Neves, R. J. and M. C. Odom. 1989. Muskrat predation on endangered freshwater mussels in
Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:934–941.
Ortmann, A.E. 1925. The naiad-fauna of the Tennessee River system below Walden George. Am.
Midl. Natur. 9:321-372.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. Final restoration plan and environmental
assessment for the Certus chemical spill natural resource damage assessment. Region 5 Virginia
Field Office, Gloucester. Accessed Jan. 25, 2010 at:
http://restoration.doi.gov/pdf/finalrestorationplans/va_certus_chemicalspill_07-04.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Candidate assessment and listing priority assignment
form- Pleurobema chattanoogaense, Pleurobema hanleyanum, Pleurobema troshelianum. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Mississippi. 8 pp.
Warren, M. and W. Haag. 2005. Spatio-temporal patterns of the decline of freshwater mussels in
the Little South Fork Cumberland River, USA. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(6): 1383-1400.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 699

 Warren, M.L., Jr., W.R. Haag, D.B. Henry, and B.M. Burr. 2001. Mussel resource of the Little
South Fork Cumberland River: requiem or recovery? Second Meeting of the Freshwater Mollusk
Conservation Society. Westin Convention Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 11–14 March 2001.
Accessed Jan. 25, 2010 at: http://ellipse.inhs.uiuc.edu/FMCS/Meetings/2001Abstracts.pdf
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the
Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
908 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 700

 Scientific Name:
Medionidus walkeri
Common Name:
Suwannee Moccasinshell
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Threatened

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
The range of the Suwannee Moccasinshell is 100-250 square km in the Suwannee River system in
Florida, with 11 historical occurrences in the Withlacoochee, Suwannee, and Santa Fe drainages
(Johnson 1977). It is known from the lower Withlacoochee, from its confluence with the main
channel downstream to approximately Levy County, and from above the sinks in the upper Santa
Fe river system including both the main channel and New River sites. Its occurrence is sporadic,
especially in the main channel of the Suwannee (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This mussel is known from medium-sized creeks and rivers in areas of moderate current with
mud, sand, muddy sand, or sand and gravel substrate (Johnson 1977, Heard 1979, Deyrup and
Franz 1994). It occurs most often in coarser sediments in mid-channel habitats (J. Brim Box,
pers. obs. cited in NatureServe 2008). This mussel requires high water quality (NatureServe
2008).
Populations:
There are fewer than five populations of this mussel. It is known from 11 historical occurrences-four on the main stem of the Suwannee River, one on the Withlacoochee River, five in the Santa
Fe River and one in the New River. This mussel has only been detected live recently only in the
Santa Fe River in 1981, and in the New River in 1987 and 1994. In addition, a dead shell was
located at the type locality in the Suwannee River in 1981. It may be extirpated from the
Withlacoochee River and the main channel of the Suwannee River. Total population size of this
species is estimated at 1-1000 individuals. In 1977 it was considered to be abundant only at the
type locality in the mainstem of the Suwannee, and was uncommon at other sites. Of 14 historical
records, only one site had over 20 specimens. In the late 1980's, the last location that harbored
sizeable populations yielded only three specimens. Only one live mussel has been detected
recently throughout this species' historic range (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The Suwannee Moccasinshell has declined by 75-90 percent (NatureServe 2008). It is
"exceedingly rare and in significant decline," with only one individual having been detected alive
recently (J. Brim Box, pers. comm. cited in NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This mussel is ranked by NatureServe (2008) as critically imperiled in Florida. It is classified as
endangered by the IUCN. Its status was changed from threatened (1993) to endangered (2010) by
the American Fisheries Society (Draft, in review). As only one mussel has been detected alive
recently, this species is in dire need of Endangered Species Act protection. Its rank is being
changed from threatened (Williams et al. 1993) to endangered by the American Fisheries Society
(2010 draft, in review).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 701

 Habitat destruction:
This mussel is threatened by sedimentation due to agricultural and silvicultural activities, by
phosphate mining on the upper Suwannee River main channel, by industrial pollution from a pulp
mill in the Withlacoochee watershed, and by localized municipal pollution. It is also threatened by
eutrophication from residential development (NatureServe 2008). The Florida Wildlife
Conservation Commission (2005) reports that this species' stream habitat in Florida is threatened
by chemical pollution, sedimentation, development, logging, mining, invasive species, agriculture,
and eutrophication. The Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection (2002) reports that water
quality in the Suwannee is threatened by large-scale chicken farming operations and by large-scale
water withdrawals.
Overutilization:
Overutilization threatens the survival of this species. Only one individual has been detected alive
recently, making this species exceedingly vulnerable to overutilization. NatureServe (2008) states,
"Overharvest by shell collectors and biologists has been a distinct possibility; in the past 20 years,
more than 20 specimens of this threatened species have been retained for collections at the
GEXEMPSITE alone. Given already stressed populations throughout most or possibly all of its
range, overcollecting can potentially contribute significantly to this species' decline."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that currently protect this species.
Other factors:
This mussel is potentially threatened by competition from the Asiatic clam (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Legacy Habitats: Calcareous Streams.
Accessed Feb. 4, 2010 at:
http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Calcareous_Stream.pdf
Heard, W.H. 1979. Identification manual of the fresh water clams of Florida. State of Florida,
Department of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series, 4(2): 1-82.
Johnson, R.I. 1977. Monograph of the genus Medionidus (Bivalvia: Unionidae) mostly from the
Apalachicolan region, southeastern United States. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 4(56): 161187.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 702

 Scientific Name:
Megaceros aenigmaticus
Common Name:
A hornwort
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This hornwort species is found in Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee; natural heritage
records indicate that it is present in Georgia’s Fannin County, North Carolina’s Cherokee, Clay,
Graham, Haywood, Macon, and Swain Counties, and Tennessee’s Blount, Cocke, Monroe, Polk,
and Sevier Counties (NatureServe 2008). The largest populations are found in the Joyce KilmerSlickrock Wilderness in western North Carolina’s Nantahala National Forest.
Habitat:
This species forms dense mats on rocks in small, clear, shaded streams, springs, or waterfall spray
zones, often at river headwaters and generally within mixed hardwood forests (NatureServe
2008). Seasonal inundation is necessary for survival and reproduction, though colonies may be
consistently submerged in 1-2 inches of water (Schuster 1992).
Ecology:
A dioecious species, M. aenigmaticus reproduces primarily by marginal fragmentation of the
thallus (Hicks and Amoroso 1996). Seasonal inundation is necessary for reproduction and
colonization of new habitat (Schuster 1992). It is the only species in the Megaceros genus known
to occur north of Mexico.
Populations:
Populations are small, as is total global range (Schuster 1992).
Population Trends:
Populations are in decline as a result of anthropogenic habitat disturbance or destruction
(Schuster 1992).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that M. aenigmaticus is critically imperiled in Georgia, and imperiled
in North Carolina and Tennessee. Remaining populations are small and geographically isolated
(Schuster 1992).
Habitat destruction:
This species is very sensitive to changes in water quality resulting from sedimentation,
agricultural or industrial runoff, and the increase in water temperature that accompanies canopy
clearing within riparian zones (NatureServe 2008, Hicks and Amoroso 1996). Thriving
populations are found in undisturbed waters, while the species is absent from ecologically similar
streams in nearby developed areas.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this hornwort; though it is listed as a
species of special concern in Tennessee, this designation offers it no substantial regulatory
protections from the habitat destruction that threatens its persistence.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 703

 References:
Hicks, M.L. and J.L. Amoroso. 1996. Broyphyte status survey: MEGACEROS AENIGMATICUS
Schuster. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and Endangered Species Field Office, US
Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina. Revised 1997. 10 pp. and addenda.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
November 9, 2009)
Schuster, R.M. 1992. On Megaceros aenigmaticus Schust. The Bryologist 95(3):305-315.
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.
Stotler, R. E. and B. Crandall-Stotler. 2005. A revised classification of the Anthocerotophya and
a checklist of the Hornworts of North America, north of Mexico. Bryologist 108(1): 16-26.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 704

 Scientific Name:
Megaleuctra williamsae
Common Name:
Smokies Needlefly
G Rank:
G2
Range:
NatureServe (2008) states: "This stonefly is known from the highest elevations of Virginia (Mt
Rogers National Recreation Area, Grayson Co.) and immediate vicinity of the Smoky Mt National
Park (North Carolina: Graham Co., Haywood Co., Jackson Co., Macon Co., Yancey Co.) and
Tennessee (Sevier Co.). LeGrand et al. (2006) cite UT Cullasaja River in Macon Co., Cove Creek
in Haywood Co., Mull Creek in Jackson Co., Beech Flats Prong in Swain Co., North Carolina."
Habitat:
This stonefly is found in higher elevation springs, seeps, and creeks.
Populations:
Megaleuctra williamsae is known from fewer than 20 occurrences (NatureServe 2008).
According to the Kondratieff, in SC Department of Natural Resources (2005), M. williamsae
“occurs as small populations, usually less than 20 nymphs per site.”
Population Trends:
Morse et al. (1993) report that this species is rare and vulnerable throughout its range.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Smokies Needlefly as critically imperiled in North Carolina,
Tennessee, and Virginia, and unranked in South Carolina. It was a Federal C-2 Candidate Species
until that list was abolished.
Habitat destruction:
The springs and seeps required for survival of M. williamsae are all potentially impacted by
logging, acid deposition and development (NatureServe 2008). Morse et al. (1993) report that
this species is particularly vulnerable to habitat degradation, being restricted to isolated
springbrooks that are subject to threats of drought and development.
M. williamsae and its habitat will be adversely impacted by the implementation of projects under
the Jefferson National Forest Plan (USFS 2008). The Wet Face timber sale on the Nantahala
Ranger District in North Carolina will adversely impact M. williamsae and its habitat (USFS
2009).
Kondratieff, in SC Department of Natural Resources (2005), states that “A major challenge to the
Smokies needlefly is deforestation, which would result in opening of the canopy of seeps and
springs, increasing water temperature and likely reducing food inputs. Acid deposition, primarily
from precipitation, may alter pH conditions of the habitats, potentially eliminating populations.
Diversions of surface waters or removal of ground water may alter below ground hydrological
patterns of the seeps and springs.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
M. williamsae occurs in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Parker et al. 2007), which
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 705

 protects some occurrences of this species, but the species' lacks protection in the rest of its
limited range.
Other factors:
The invasive Hemlock Woolly Adelgid may impact individuals of M. williamsae (USFS 2005).
This species is also vulnerable to drought (Morse et al. 1993).
References:
Kondratieff, B.C. Megaleuctra williamsae. In SC Department of Natural Resources. 2005. South
Carolina Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2005-2010. Available online at
www.wildlifeactionplans.org/pdfs/action_plans/sc_action_plan.pdf. Last accessed March 18,
2010.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Morse, J.C., B.P. Stark, and W.P. McCafferty. 1993. Southern Appalachian streams at risk:
Implications for mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, and other aquatic biota.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 3:293–303.
Morse, J.C., B.P. Stark, W.P. McCafferty, and K.J. Tennessen. 1998. Chapter 2. Southern
Appalachian and other southeastern streams at risk: Implications for mayflies, dragonflies and
damselflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies. Pp. 17–42, In G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (Eds.).
Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic
Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 554 pp.
Parker, C.R., et al. 2007. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Megaloptera, and Trichoptera of Great
Smoky Mountains National Park Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Megaloptera, and Trichoptera of
Great Smoky Mountains National Park.. Southeastern Naturalist, Vol. 6, Special Issue 1: The
Great Smoky Mountains National Park All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory: A Search for Species in
Our Own Backyard, pp. 159-174.
Stark, B.P. 1996. Last updated 16 February 2001. North American Stonefly List. Online.
Available: http://www.mc.edu/campus/users/stark/Sfly0102.htm.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Environmental Assessment for the Suppression of Hemlock Woolly
Adelgid Infestations on the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. Available online at
http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/hwa_revised_ea.pdf. Last accessed March 9, 2010.
U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Species Jefferson National Forest
Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/forestplan/other/bio_eval.pdf. Last accessed March 18, 2010.
U.S. Forest Service. 2009. Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Wet Face Project on the
Nantahala Ranger District. Available online at
http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/nantahala/wet_face_ea.pdf. Last accessed March 17, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 706

 Scientific Name:
Minuartia godfreyi
Common Name:
Godfrey's Stitchwort
G Rank:
G1
Range:
Natural heritage records indicate that Godfrey's stitchwort is or was present in Pickens and
Munroe Counties, Alabama, Madison and Taylor Counties, Florida, Craven and Jones Counties,
North Carolina, Horry County, South Carolina, and Carter and Johnson Counties, Tennessee,
though recent confirmation of existing populations is not available for all locations (NatureServe
2008, ANHP 2006). This rare plant is sporadically distributed throughout its range.
Habitat:
The stitchwort is found on moist creek banks, roadside ditches, freshwater tidal marshes, wet
saline prairies, open mesic meadows, and Delta post oak (Quercus stellata) flatwoods
(NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This perennial herb flowers in April (FNA 2005).
Populations:
This plant is known from very few widely scattered occurrences, and total number of populations
and global population size are not known (NatureServe 2008, Kral 1983).
Population Trends:
This plant is in decline and has been extirpated from several historical occurrences (NatureServe
2008).
Status:
Godfrey's stitchwort is rare, in decline, and has been extirpated from several historical
occurrences across its narrow range. NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically
imperiled in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, and reports that it may be entirely
extirpated from Alabama and South Carolina. It is listed as endangered in Florida, North Carolina,
and Tennessee .
Habitat destruction:
Habitat destruction is the primary threat to Godfrey's stitchwort: the conversion of forests and
wetlands to residential or agricultural development and replacement of natural forests with
commercial forest plantations are major factors in this species' imperilment (Southern
Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though M. godfreyi is listed as endangered in Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee, these
designations afford the species and its habitat no substantial regulatory protections; no existing
regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Godfrey's stitchwort.
References:
Alabama Natural Heritage Program. 2006. Annual Report 2006. Accessed online December 15,
2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 707

 Clewell, A.F. 1985. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida Panhandle. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville. 605 PP.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee (FNA). 2005. Flora of North America North of
Mexico. Vol. 5. Magnoliophyta: Caryophyllidae: Caryophyllales, Polygonales, and
Plumbaginales. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. vii + 656 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 3, 2009.
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. 1996. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia: working draft of 23 May 1996. The
Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Southern Conservation Science Dept., Chapel
Hill, North Carolina. Unpaginated.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 708

 Scientific Name:
Moxostoma robustum
Common Name:
Robust Redhorse
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Threatened
Range:
Historically, the robust redhorse likely occurred from the Piedmont and upper Coastal Plain areas
of the Altamaha River drainage in Georgia through the Carolinas to at least the Pee Dee River
(Oppermann 2000). Today the species is restricted to the Altamaha, Savannah, and Pee Dee river
systems in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994, Rohde et al.
1994, Bryant et al. 1996, Menhinick and Braswell 1997, Straight and Freeman 2003, Grabowski
and Isely 2007). There are four known extant wild populations found in a limited portion of the
Oconee River between Milledgeville and Dublin, lower segment of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
system below Blewett Falls Dam (North Carolina/South Carolina), and in the Savannah River in
the Fall Line Zone around and below Augusta, Georgia, and North Augusta, South Carolina
(Straight and Freeman 2003). The Savannah River population is restricted to the lower 300-km
reach below New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, the terminal dam located in Augusta, Georgia
(Grabowski and Isely 2007). Populations of this fish have been introduced from Oconee stock
into the Broad and Ogeechee rivers in Georgia, and refugial populations have been established in
ponds at the Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge near Round Oak, Georgia, and several hatcheries
in Georgia and South Carolina (Bryant et al. 1996, Jimmy Evans, pers. comm., 1998 cited in
NatureServe 2008). In 2002, fish were released into the Ocmulgee River (Straight and Freeman
2003).
Habitat:
The redhorse spawns over gravel substrate in shallow flowing water (Grabowski and Isely 2007).
Adults in the Oconee River are associated with swift, moderately deep waters in areas of
accumulated woody debris (Hendricks 2002). Radio-tracked fish in the Savannah River were
consistently found along the outer edge of river bends in association with woody debris and gravel
streambed sediments (Grabowski and Isely 2006).
Populations:
Prior to its rediscovery in 1991, the robust redhorse had not been recognized for 122 years. In
1994 a small population was detected in the Oconee River, then in 1998, 5 fish were discovered
in the Savannah River (Oppermann 2000). There are four extant native populations (Hendricks
2002). Total adult population size is unknown, but based on the small numbers of adults that have
been observed, it is very likely quite small (RRCC 2001, Hendricks 2002, NatureServe 2008,
RRCC Yadkin-Pee Dee 2009). The largest known population occurs in the Oconee River and is
estimated to consist of fewer than 500 adults (RRCC 2001). Other populations are estimated to
be considerably smaller. The population in the Pee Dee for example, is estimated to include
fewer than 50 adults (RRCC Yadkin-Pee Dee 2009). The few number of populations and the
small size of these populations suggests the robust redhorse is critically endangered.
Population Trends:
The robust redhore's overall range and populations are presumed to be greatly reduced from
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 709

 Status:
The robust redhorse now exists in remnant low abundance populations in a restricted range which
faces multiple threats. NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Georgia
and North Carolina and unrated in South Carolina. The American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al.
2008) rank the Pee Dee, Altamaha, and Savannah River populations of this fish as endangered due
to habitat loss and degradation and narrow range. The redhorse is listed as endangered by the states
of Georgia and North Carolina. At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for
Biological Diversity, there was agreement that the robust redhorse is endangered (SFC and CBD
2010).
Habitat destruction:
Dams were a primary contributor to the decline of this species and pose an ongoing threat to its
survival. In all three drainages where the redhorse survives, hydroelectric dams have destroyed and
degraded habitat, restricted range, and disrupted spawning migrations (Straight and Freeman
2003). Altered flows caused by dams negatively effect the growth and survival of larvae (Weyers
et al. 2003). In the Savannah River, more than half of the observed nest sites in a main-channel
gravel bar were either completely dewatered or left in near zero-flow conditions for several days
due to dam operations (Grabowski and Isely 2007). Decreased flow reduces the amount of
available spawning habitat, and increases the risk of disturbance of preexisting nest sites by
spawning adults (Grabowski and Isely 2007).
The habitat of the redhorse is also threatened by several other factors. Channel straightening has
resulted in fewer channel bends and caused the loss of spawning habitat (Meyer et al. 2003).
Sedimentation from agriculture and deforestation likely contributed to the early decline of this
species and is an ongoing threat (Hendricks 2002). Urbanization is a threat within the restricted
remaining habitat (Bryant et al. 1996). Kaolin mining also threatens this species (Lasier et al.
2004). The proposed construction of two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle on the Savannah
River also threatens the redhorse due to dredging impacts to allow the barging of construction
materials, flow alterations and thermal pollution that would result from operation of the reactors,
and the cumulative impact of having four operating reactors on the Savannah River in conjunction
with water withdrawals for other uses (Barczak and Young 2009).
Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss and degradation as a threat to this species.
Overutilization:
Historical overfishing by settlers during spawning migrations likely contributed to the decline of
this species (Hendricks 2002).
Disease or predation:
The introduction of non-indigenous, predatory fish species likely contributed to the decline of this
species (Hendricks 2002). Most rivers in the redhorse’s historical range are now inhabited by
flathead catfish, and predation by flathead catfish and blue catfish poses an ongoing threat (Marcy
2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The redhorse is listed as endangered by the states of North Carolina and Georgia, but this
designation does not provide meaningful regulatory protection for the species' habitat.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 710

 In 1995, a voluntary partnership called the Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee (RRCC) was
created through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between state and federal resource
agencies, private industry, and the conservation community to improve the status of the redhorse.
Under the auspices of the RRCC, captive rearing programs have been established and attempts have
been made to reintroduce the species into new habitats (Lawrence et al. 2007). It is likely to early
to determine if these efforts will be successful. There have also been efforts to change dam
management to benefit the species by, for example, limiting the practice of load following through
daily fluctuations in flow (SFC and CBD 2010).
Although we applaud these efforts, they have to date not been effective in recovering the species.
Moreover, the formation of the committee and the MOU do not provide regulatory protection for
the species or its habitat and thus cannot be relied on by the Service to deny the species listing.
Participation on the committee is voluntary, and actions taken or funds expended to implement the
agreement are contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other constraints. A Candidate
Conservation Agreement with Assurances has been developed for this species, but this
collaborative effort has not effectively prevented the ongoing degradation of redhorse habitat,
which is already severely reduced from historical levels. In 2005, for example, 50 percent of
observed nest sites of the redhorse were completely or nearly dewatered for several days at a time
(Grabowski and Isely 2007). Given the magnitude of the decline of this species, the ongoing
threats to its survival, and the uncertainty of implementation and effectiveness of voluntary
agreements, Endangered Species Act protection is necessary to ensure the survival of the
redhorse.
Other factors:
Several other factors threaten the robust redhorse. Water pollution from sedimentation and
contaminants is a primary threat to this species. Five major tributaries draining urban and
agricultural watersheds carry permitted municipal and industrial effluents into the Oconee River,
and sediments in the river have elevated levels of chromium, copper, mercury, and zinc. Lasier et
al. (2004) state, “Sediments in the lower Oconee River appear to be impaired due to metal
contamination and could pose a threat to organisms, such as the robust redhorse, that are closely
associated with this matrix during their life cycle.” Fine sediment particles settle in gravel and can
entrap and suffocate eggs and larvae (Marcy 2005). Jennings et al. (2010) report that fine
sediment pollution of gravel substrates threatens eggs and larvae in the Oconee River. They found
that eggs incubated in gravel substrates infested with varying levels of fine sediment experienced
severe reductions in survival when fine sediment levels were greater than 15 percent in the
laboratory. Fine sediment concentrations in spawning substrates at known spawning locations in
the Oconee River are well above this level (Jennings et al. 2010). Lazier et al. (2004) state: “Soil
erosion and sedimentation contribute a major stress to the (Oconee) system. Early-life stages of
the robust redhorse may be particularly affected because fine sediments clog gravel bars occupied
during early development reducing the availability of dissolved oxygen and providing a route of
exposure to sediment-associated contaminants. Sediments are repositories for contaminants
released to the environment (Lee and Jones, 1984, Salomons et al. 1987), and fine materials
within the sediment matrix tend to accumulate the majority of contaminants by virtue of the
chemical and physical characteristics inherent to their large surface areas (O'Conner 1990).
Robust redhorse eggs are deposited and develop in gravel bars that receive significant amounts of
fine sediment. Exposure of the earlylife stages to these sediments and associated contaminants
may be limiting recruitment of this species.”

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 711

 The redhorse is particularly vulnerable to extinction due to limited range, low abundance, skewed
population age toward older individuals, and little evidence of substantial recruitment in any
surviving population (Hendricks 2002, Marcy 2005). Predation from invasive catfish is also a
threat (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Barczak, S. and S.P. Young. 2009. Water use impacts on Georgia’s water resources and threats
from increased water intensive energy production. Proceedings of the 2009 Georgia Water
Resources Conference, held April 27–29, 2009, at the University of Georgia.
Bryant, R.T., J.W. Evans, R.E.Jenkins, and B.J. Freeman. 1996. The mystery fish. Southern
Wildlife vol 1/n2 pp. 26-35.
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources. 2009. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
Southeastern Plains. Accessed March 15, 2010 at:
http://www1.gadnr.org/cwcs/PDF/12_SoutheasternPlains.pdf
Grabowski, T. B., and J. J. Isely. 2006. Seasonal and diel movement and habitat use of robust
redhorse in the lower Savannah River, South Carolina and Georgia. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 135:1145-1155.
Grabowski, T. B., and J. J. Isely. 2007. Effects of flow fluctuations on the spawning habitat of a
riverine fish. Southeastern Naturalist 6:471-478.
Hendricks, A. S. 2002. The conservation and restoration of the robust redhorse Moxostoma
robustum. Volume 3. Report prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE Washington, DC 20426.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Jennings, C., B. J. Heff, and J. Hilterman. 2000. Population dynamics of robust redhorse
(Moxostoma robustum) in the Oconee River, Georgia. Report completed for the USGS
Biological Resources Division. University of Georgia Research Work Order 52.
Jennings, C.A., E.W. Dilts, J.L. Shelton, and R.C. Peterson. 2010. Fine sediment affects on
survival to emergence of robust redhorse. Environ Biol Fish (2010) 87:43–53.
Lasier, P.J., P.V. Winger, J.L. Shelton, Jr., and K.J. Bogenrieder. 2004. Sediment-Quality
Assessment of the Lower Oconee River. Southeastern Naturalist 3(1):139-154.
Lawrence, A., R. C. Peterson, D. Pender, W. Bailey, and E. Caldwell. 2007. Robust Redhorse
Habitat Restoration Management Plan. Updated Report prepared by the Habitat Technical
Working Group of the Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee. Accessed April 14, 2010 and
available at http://www.robustredhorse.com/h/reportpubs.html
Marcy, B.C. 2005. Fishes of the Middle Savannah River Basin: with emphasis on the Savannah
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 712

 River site. University of Georgia Press. 462 pp.
Oppermann, T. 2000. Population Structure of the Endangered Robust Redhorse (Moxostoma
robustum) Based on Mitochondrial DNA Control Region Sequence. Bios 71(3):85-90.
RRCC Yadkin Pee Dee. 2009. Electrofishing Surveys for Robust Redhorse on the Pee Dee
River, North and South Carolina. Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee Yadkin-Pee Dee
Technical Working Group. November 2009. Accessed April 13, 2010, Available at:
http://www.robustredhorse.com/h/reportpubs.html
RRCC. 2001. Report of the Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee Annual Meeting. South
Carolina Aquarium, Charleston, SC. October 3-5, 2001. Accessed April 13, 2010, available at
http://www.robustredhorse.com/h/reportpubs.html
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2005. South Carolina’s Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2005-2010. Accessed March 3, 2010 at:
http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/pdfs/action_plans/sc_action_plan.pdf . Also:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/habitat/CoastalPlainAquatics.pdf
Straight, C. A., and B. J. Freeman. 2003. Status of robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum):
reintroduction efforts and preliminary results of sonic-tracking in the Ocmulgee River.
Proceedings of the 2002 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 23-24 2003, at the
University of Georgia. Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology, The University of
Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Weyers, R. S., C. A. Jennings, and M. C. Freeman. 2003. Effects of pulsed, high-velocity water
flow on larval robust redhorse and V-lip redhorse. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 132:84-91.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 713

 Scientific Name:
Moxostoma sp. 2
Common Name:
Sicklefin Redhorse
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The sicklefin redhorse once inhabited the majority of rivers and streams in the Blue Ridge portion
of the Hiwassee and Little Tennessee River systems in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia
(Jenkins 1999, FWS 2009). Currently, there are only two metapopulations of the sicklefin
redhorse known to survive – one in the Hiwassee River system and one in the Little Tennessee
River system (Jenkins 1999, FWS 2009). In total, the species is estimated to be eliminated from
nearly 60 percent of its historic range (FWS 2009).
Habitat:
The sicklefin redhorse occupies riffles, runs and flowing pools with gravel, cobble, boulder and
bedrock substrates with little to no silt in rivers and creeks with moderate velocities (Jenkins
1999, FWS 2009). During early life stages, the sicklefin redhorse has also apparently adapted to
near shore areas of reservoirs (Ibid.)
Populations:
The sicklefin redhorse still occurs in the main stem of the Hiwassee River between Mission Dam
and Hiwassee Lake in North Carolina (approximately 9.0 miles), in Brasstown Creek
(approximately 16.9 miles), a tributary to the Hiwassee River in North Carolina and Georgia, the
main stem of the Valley River, between the community of Buffalo and backwaters of Hiwassee
Lake (approximately 22.3 miles) in North Carolina, in Hanging Dog Creek (approximately 3.0
miles), a tributary to Hiwassee River (at Hiwassee Lake) in North Carolina and a short reach of
the Nottley River (approximately 2-3 miles) between the cold water discharge from Nottely
Reservoir and the backwaters of Hiwassee Reservoir in North Carolina (References cited in FWS
2009). In total, the species is found in only roughly 53 river miles of the Hiwassee River system
and 42 river miles of the Little Tennessee River system, as well as in some reservoirs (FWS
2009).
Population Trends:
The sicklefin redhorse has undergone substantial long-term decline (Jenkins 1999, FWS 2009).
Status:
The sicklefin redhorse is considered critically imperiled in both Georgia and North Carolina
(NatureServe 2008), threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008), a candidate
species for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS 2009), threatened by the state of
North Carolina and endangered by the state of Georgia (Albanese 2008).
At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological Diversity, there was
agreement that the sicklefin redhorse should be listed as theatened (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
The sicklefin redhorse has been severely impacted by impoundments, as well as urban sprawl,
agriculture, logging and other activities that contribute sediment and other pollutants to streams where

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 714

 the species occurs (Jenkins 1999, Albanese 2008, FWS 2009). Albanese (2008), for example,
concluded:
"Historically, impoundments have destroyed a large amount of adult feeding and breeding habitat
throughout the range of the sicklefin redhorse. Impoundments also fragment populations, which
eliminates opportunities for gene flow, colonization after local extinction, and migration to upstream
spawning habitats. Failure to follow agricultural best-management practices results in sedimentation and
bank destabilization in Brasstown Creek. Commercial and residential development in the North Georgia
mountains is also a significant threat."
Likewise, FWS (2009) concluded:
"Many populations of the species were apparently extirpated when large portions of suitable habitat in
the upper Tennessee River system were destroyed as a result of impoundments created when dams were
constructed (Jenkins 1999, p. 26). These impoundments also resulted in fragmentation and isolation of
the remaining populations, making them more vulnerable to extirpation from other environmental
impacts. In addition to impoundments, other factors contributing to habitat destruction and modification
that resulted in population losses and curtailment of the range of this species are believed to include
inadequate erosion/sedimentation control (Jenkins 1999, p. 27) during agricultural, timbering, and
construction activities; run-off and discharge of organic and inorganic pollutants (Jenkins 1999, p. 27)
from industrial, municipal, agricultural, and other point and nonpoint sources; habitat alterations
associated with channelization and instream dredging/mining activities; and other natural and humanrelated factors that adversely modify the aquatic environment. As described below, many of these
factors continue to threaten the surviving populations."
Disease or predation:
FWS (2009) identify introduction of blueback herring as a potentially serious threat to the
sicklefin redhorse, stating:
"Recently, non-native blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) were introduced to Hiwassee Reservoir,
presumably by angler bait release. NCWRC biologists have documented a collapse of natural
reproduction of walleye (Sander vitreus) and white bass (Morone chrysops), concurrent with
increases in blueback herring densities. Heavy predation of drifting eggs and early juveniles of
both walleye and white bass by blueback herring has been observed in the transition zone between
the free-flowing Hiwassee and Valley rivers and Hiwassee Reservoir. Blueback herring have been
observed several miles upstream in Valley River and have unobstructed access to the Hiwassee
River, Mission Dam, and lower Brasstown Creek. Blueback herring have also been observed
congregating at the mouths of other tributaries to Hiwassee Reservoir in March and April (above is
condensed from personal observations by A.P. Wheeler, D.L. Yow, and S.J. Fraley NCWRC
2005-2006). The presence of large numbers of known predators of drifting fish eggs and larvae at
or near the time of spawning and hatching of sicklefin redhorse poses a potentially significant
threat. Further investigation is required to determine the degree of threat posed to sicklefin
redhorse survival and recruitment in the Hiwassee River system. To date, no Blueback herring have
been collected from Fontana Reservoir or elsewhere in the Little Tennessee River system
upstream from Fontana Dam."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 715

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
FWS (2009) concluded that the sicklefin redhorse is not adequately protected by existing regulatory
mechanisms, stating:
"The sicklefin redhorse does not currently have any official status in North Carolina; however, the North
Carolina Non-Game Advisory Committee has recommended that the species be state-listed as
threatened. It is anticipated that the listing will become official in the coming year. In Georgia, the
sicklefin redhorse is state-listed as endangered. Both states prohibit the collection of the fish for
scientific purposes without a valid State collecting permit. However, this requirement does not protect
the species from 'incidental' harm, injury, death (impacts resulting from activities not specifically intend
to the harm the species) or provide any protection to the species’ habitat except on state-owned lands."
References:
FWS 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment
for the sicklefin redhorse. Asheville, NC. March 13, 2009. Accessed April 13, 2010 at
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms_pdf/r4/E0AF_V01.pdf
Harris, P. M., and R. L. Mayden. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of major clades of Catostomidae
(Teleostei: Cypriniformes) as inferred from mitchondrial SSU and LSU rDNA sequences. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 20:225-237.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Jenkins, R.E. 1999. Sicklefin Redhorse (Moxostoma sp.), undescribed species of sucker
(Pisces, Catostomidae) in the upper Tennessee River drainage, North Carolina and Georgia-description, aspects of biology, habitat, distribution, and population status. Unpublished report to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office, Asheville, NC, and the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 34 pp., tables 1-7, and figures 1-15.
NatureServe. Unpublished. Concept reference for taxa which have not yet been described; to be
used as a placeholder until a citation is available which describes the circumscription of the
taxon.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 716

 Scientific Name:
Najas filifolia
Common Name:
Narrowleaf Naiad
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The narrowleaf naiad occurs in peninsular Florida and the Florida panhandle, as well as in parts of
southwestern Georgia. It was once reported in Mississippi, but that report is now considered a
misidentification (Kartesz 1998 as cited in NatureServe 2008). Natural heritage records exist for
Alachua, Highlands, Lake, Leon, Marion, and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida, and Decatur County,
Georgia, but as of 2000, extant populations were reported only from Santa Rosa and Leon
Counties, Florida, and Decatur County, Georgia (FNA 2000).
Habitat:
The naiad is found in freshwater lakes, rivers, and basin marshes, generally in blackwater habitats
which contain a high concentration of leached organic acids (NatureServe 2008, FNAI 2009).
Ecology:
This submerged annual flowers in late summer (FNA 2000).
Populations:
This species is known from just four locations-- two in Florida and two in Georgia (FNA 2000).
Population sizes are not reported.
Population Trends:
Population trend has not been reported for this species, but the decline in reported locations
suggests a rangewide decline.
Status:
Known from just four populations throughout its apparently contracting range, this species is
widely threatened by hydrological alterations. NatureServe (2008) ranks the narrowleaf naiad as
critically imperiled in both Florida and Georgia. It is listed as threatened in Florida.
Habitat destruction:
This species is threatened primarily by damming, diversion, and other anthropogenic alterations to
hydrology that imperil its habitat and allow encroachment by woody upland species (FNAI 2009).
Disease or predation:
The naiad may be threatened by the grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), which was introduced to
parts of the Southeast as part of an aquatic weed control program but is now considered an invasive
species in many states (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is listed as threatened in Florida, this designation offers N. filifolia no substantial
regulatory protections; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 717

 References:
Flora of North America, Vol. 22. 2000. Oxford University Press.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2009. Basin marsh. Accessed online January 27, 2010
<<www.fnai.org/PDF/NC/Basin_Marsh.pdf >>
Haynes, R.R. 1985. A new species of Najas (Najadaceae) from the southeastern U.S.A. Brittonia
37(4): 392-393.
Kartesz, John T., and C. Meacham. 1998. Unpublished review draft of Floristic Synthesis, 17
Aug 1998. North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 11, 2009)
Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia. 1994. List of federal candidate
species occurring in Georgia. Accessed online January 27,
2010<<http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/service/library/for94-063/index.html>>

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 718

 Scientific Name:
Necturus alabamensis
Common Name:
Black Warrior Waterdog
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
The Black Warrior Waterdog occurs above the Fall Line in the Black Warrior River Basin in
Alabama (NatureServe 2008). This salamander is patchily distributed in the Appalachian portions
of the Black Warrior drainage (Bart et al. 1997, Bailey 2005).There are known populations in
Sipsey Fork and Brushy Creek in Winston County, in Locust Fork and Blackburn Fork in Blount
County, in Mulberry Fork, Blackwater Creek, and Lost Creek in Walker County, in the North
River and in Yellow Creek in Tuscaloosa County (USFWS 1999, Bailey and Moler 2003).
Habitat:
This benthic salamander occurs in medium to large permanent streams with logs, submerged
ledges, rocks, and other features which provide cover (Ashton and Peavy 1986). It uses
semipermanent leaf beds where they are available. Its historical range likely included streams 10
meters or more wide, with moderate flows and alternating rapids and pools (Ashton and Peavy
1986, Bailey 1992).
Populations:
There are from 9-14 surviving populations of this species. Bailey and Moler (2003) and Bailey
(2005) report this salamander from 9 stream segments. Bailey and Guyer (2004) state that the
species is "presently known from 14 scattered locations." Guyer (1997) sampled 120 sites for
this salamander from 1990-1997, including all localities within its range that approached or
intersected roads and had appropriate habitat, with only an 8 percent success rate. Based on a
statistical analysis of the data, Guyer concluded that waterdogs were unlikely to have been missed
if they were present. Waterdogs were detected at only ten sites in four counties in surveys
conducted in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, and 1998 (Bailey 1995, Guyer 1997, 1998).
The total population size of Black Warrior Waterdog is unknown. This species is now rare and
occurs sporadically within its range (Guyer 1997). Population density is low even at the best
localities (Bailey and Guyer 2004). A 1990-1992 survey detected only a few individuals in four
localities, including six adults and one larva in Sipsey Fork, one adult in Lost Creek, one larva in
North River, and one subadult in Yellow Creek (Bailey 1992). During a 1996-1997 survey, 18
individuals were detected in Sipsey Fork and 11 individuals were detected in Brushy Creek (Guyer
1997).
Population Trends:
Even though this salamander was extensively surveyed from 1990 to 1997, population abundance
was too low to determine short-term population trend. Guyer and Durflinger (1999) report that
abundance may fluctuate from year to year, but only low numbers of this species were detected
throughout the 1990's. Over the long-term, this species has declined by 50-75 percent
(NatureServe 2008). This salamander has been reduced or extirpated over much of its historic
range due to habitat degradation (Bailey 1992).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 719

 Status:
The Black Warrior Waterdog is imperiled in Alabama (G2S2) (NatureServe 2008). It is ranked as
Endangered by the IUCN. It is a federal candidate for ESA listing and is in dire need of full ESA
protection.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat degradation has resulted in population reduction or extirpation over much of the historical
range of this salamander (Bailey 1992). The Black Warrior Waterdog now exists only in highly
fragmented populations where it occurs at low densities and is extremely vulnerable to further
habitat degradation (NatureServe 2008). Habitat conditions are expected to worsen for this
species (NatureServe 2008). Pollution and sedimentation from mining, forestry, agricultural
(especially poultry farms and cattle feedlots), and industrial and residential sewage effluent have
contributed to the extirpation of this species over much of its range and pose an ongoing threat to
its survival (Bailey 1995, Bailey and Guyer 2004).
There are widespread and numerous sources of point and nonpoint source pollution in this
species' habitat. Most of the streams which once supported this species now show evidence of
deteriorated water quality and many appear biologically depauperate (Bailey 1992, 1995, Guyer
1997). Industrial plants, landfills, sewage treatment plants, and drain fields from private
residences are known sources of pollution in this salamander's habitat (FWS 1998), as are poultry
and cattle feedlots (Deutsch et al. 1990). Urban runoff from Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, and Jasper
also threatens this species (Mettee et al. 1989, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990).
The Black Warrior Waterdog is also threatened by surface mining for coal, which causes erosion,
sedimentation, hydrological alteration, declining groundwater levels and general water quality
degradation (Bailey 1995, FWS 1998). Logging also threatens this salamander (Dodd et al. 1986,
Hartfield 1990, FWS 1998). Waterdogs are vulnerable to sedimentation and pollution because
they spend virtually all of their lives on the stream bottom and are in contact with any toxic
sediments that are present (Bailey 1995).
Impoundments also threaten this species. Impoundments in the Black Warrior basin have flooded
thousands of hectares of previously suitable habitat and fostered populations of predatory fishes.
There are no records of Black Warrior waterdogs occurring in impoundments (Bailey, pers.
comm., 1999 cited in NatureServe 2008). Hartfield (1990) reported that the entire main channel
of the Black Warrior River has been affected by impoundments, as have reaches of the Locust
Fork, Mulberry Fork, Sipsey Fork, and North River. The Sipsey Fork is perhaps the best remaining
locality for the Waterdog (Guyer 1998), but habitat quality there is known to be declining (Bailey
and Guyer 1998).
Remaining Waterdog populations are isolated from each other by unsuitable habitat caused by
impoundments, pollution, and other factors. Habitat fragmention causes surviving isolated
populations to be vulnerable to catastrophic events including floods, droughts, or chemical spills.
Even if stream quality improves within portions of the basin, impoundments and polluted
segments will act as barriers that prevent population rescue and reestablishment (NatureServe
2008).
Overutilization:
Due to its increasing rarity and the low abundance of surviving populations of this species,
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 720

 overutilization by herpetological collectors increasingly threatens the survival of this salamander.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Despite this species' status as a federal candidate for Endangered Species Act protection,
NatureServe (2008) reports that no occurrences are appropriately protected and managed. The
State of Alabama provides no protection for this endemic species, categorizing it only as a Species
of Greatest Conservation Need. The Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 and the Clean Water Act of 1972 have been ineffective in preventing the continued decline
of this salamander in the Black Warrior basin (Dodd et al. 1986, Mettee et al. 1989, Hartfield
1990, Bailey and Guyer 1998, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). This species occurs on
Bankhead National Forest, with the remaining 90 percent of occurences being on private land. Due
to ongoing habitat degradation, the Black Warrior Waterdog needs full Endangered Species Act
protection before it is driven to extinction while waiting on the candidate list.
Other factors:
Water pollution threatens the Black Warrior Waterdog. Guyer (1997) found that this salamander is
associated with substrates that lack silt and that have increased abundance of snails and
Desmognathus salamanders, both of which are sensitive to water quality degradation. Guyer (1997)
also found that this salamander occurs more often in sites with decreased abundance of invasive
Corbicula clams, indicating that the spread of this invasive clam may somehow threaten the
Waterdog via unknown mechanisms.
References:
Ashton, R. E., Jr., and B. Peavy. 1985. Tenn-Tom Waterway Necturus project. Unpublished
report submitted to Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery,
Alabama. 15 pp.
Ashton, R. E., Jr., and J. Peavy. 1986. Black Warrior waterdog. Pages 63-64 in R. H. Mount
(editor). Vertebrate animals of Alabama in need of special attention. Alabama Agricultural
Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
Bailey, K. A., and C. Guyer. 1998. Demography and population status of the flattened musk
turtle, STERNOTHERUS DEPRESSUS, in the Black Warrior River basin of Alabama. Chelonian
Conservation and Biology 3:77-83.
Bailey, M. A. 1992. Black Warrior waterdog status survey, Final Report 1990-1992.
Unpublished report submitted to Alabama Game and Fish Division, Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, Alabama 36849. Orihect E-1, Study No. 5.
27 pp.
Bailey, M. A. 1995. Black Warrior waterdog survey 1994-95: Performance report. Unpublished
report submitted to Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery,
Alabama. 27 pp.
Bailey, M. A. 2000. Habitat assessment of known occurrences of the Black Warrior waterdog
(Necturus alabamensis). Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Jackson, MS. 24 pp.
Bailey, M. A. 2005. Necturus alabamensis Viosca, 1937. Black Warrior waterdog. Pages 866867 in M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibians declines: the conservation status of United States
Species. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 721

 Bailey, M. A., and C. Guyer. 2004. Black warrior waterdog. Pages 36-37 in R. E. Mirarchi, M. A.
Bailey, T. M. Haggarty, and T. L. Best, editors. Alabama wildlife. Volume 3. Imperiled
amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Bailey, M. A., and P. E. Moler. 2003. Necturus alabamensis. Catalogue of American Amphibians
and Reptiles 761:1-2.
Bart, H. L., Jr., M. A. Bailey, R. E. Ashton, Jr., and P. E. Moler. 1997. Taxonomic and
nomenclatural status of the upper Balck Warrior River waterdog. Journal of Herpetology
31:192-201.
Deutsch, W. G., W. C. Seesock, E. C. Webber, and D. R. Bayne. 1990. The impact of poultry
rearing operations on water quality and biological communities of second order streams in
Cullman and Winston counties, Alabama, 1988-89. Auburn University, Department of Fisheries
and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn, Alabama. 62 pp.
Dodd, C. K., Jr. 1990. Effects of habitat fragmentation on a stream-dwelling species, the
flattened musk turtle STERNOTHERUS DEPRESSUS. Biological Conservation 54:33-45.
Dodd, C. K., K. M. Enge, and J. N. Stuart. 1986. The effects of mining siltation on the
distribution and abundance of the flattened musk turtle, Sternotherus depressus, in northern
Alabama. Denver Wildlife Research Center, Gainevsille, Florida. 82 pp.
Guyer, C. 1997. A status survey of the Black Warrior waterdog (NECTURUS SP.), Final Report.
Unpublished report. Department of Zoology and Wildlife Science, Auburn University, Auburn,
Alabama 36849. 334-844-9232.
Guyer, C. 1998. Historical affinities and population biology of the Black Warrior waterdog
(Necturus alabamens1s). Unpublished report submitted to Alabama Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources, Montgomery, Alabama. 12 pp.
Guyer, C. and M. Durflinger. 1999. A demographic study of the black warrior waterdog
(Necturus alabamensis): final report. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Montgomery, Alabama.
Hartfield, P. 1990. Status survey for mussels in the tributaries of the Black Warrior River,
Alabama. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 8 pp.
Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neill, J. M. Pierson, and R. D. Suttkus. 1989. Fishes of the Black Warrior
River system in Alabama. Geological Survey of Alabama Bulletin 133. 201 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Flattened musk turtle recovery plan. Jackson,
Mississippi. 15 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Technical/agency draft Mobile River Basin
ecosystem recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Jackson, Mississippi. 112 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Candidate and listing priority assignment forms.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 722

 Scientific Name:
Necturus lewisi
Common Name:
Neuse River Waterdog
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
Neuse River Waterdogs (Necturus lewisi) only occur in the Neuse and Tar river systems in the
Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions of North Carolina (AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Habitat:
Neuse River Waterdogs are permanently aquatic stream dwellers that require relatively high water
quality and high levels of dissolved oxygen (Ashton 1990). They occur in areas of submerged leaf
liter in eddies and backwaters (Bury et al. 1980 in NatureServe 2008). Juveniles have been
encountered sheltering under granite boulders on sand/gravel substrate and in leaf beds (Petranka
1998 in AmphibiaWeb 2009). This salamander constructs retreats under cover objects, and
construct retreats entrances on the downstream side of rocks (Ashton 1985 in AmphibiaWeb
2009).
AmphibiaWeb (2009) provides the following description of Neuse River Waterdog habitat:
"While Bishop (1943) notes animals generally are found in backwaters off the main current,
where substrates are sandy or muddy, Braswell and Ashton (1985) found animals to be most
abundant in streams greater than 15 m wide and 1 m deep, with flow rates of greater than 10 cm/s.
Further, Braswell and Ashton (1985) found more animals associated with clay or hard soil
substrates, while Brimley (1924) and Martof et al. (1980) found animals associated with leaf beds
(see also Petranka, 1998). Neuse River waterdogs are distributed from larger headwater streams
in the Piedmont to coastal streams up to the point of saltwater intrusion (Braswell and Ashton,
1985)."
Ecology:
AmphibiaWeb (2009) provides the following details on the ecology of Neuse River Waterdogs:
Adults are active at night, and daytime activity is limited, as is activity when water temperatures
are greater than 18˚C. Adults remain active at temperatures as low as 0˚C (Braswell and Ashton,
1985; Petranka, 1998). Home range size was determined to be 16–19 m2 for two females, and
49–90 m2 for three males (Ashton, 1985), with males also moving greater distances between
captures. Eggs are attached to the underside of cover objects such as large rocks in the water in
moderate currents in water depths of 25-41 cm. Breeding occurs in the spring. Detected nest sites
were in areas that received only a few hours of direct sunlight per day. Clutch size has been
reported at 19-35 eggs. Nests are guarded by females and potentially by males. Larvae feed on
leaf-litter invertebrates (Braswell and Ashton, 1985; see also Petranka, 1998). Females and males
defend their retreat sites. In the spring and fall activity levels are highest and activity increases
following moderate rainfall, when barometric pressure is low or falling, and during the new moon.
In spring adults move from winter shelters in leaf beds, river banks, and under rocks to boulders
or outcrops in fast currents with high dissolved-oxygen content to nest and spend the summer.
This salamander becomes sexually mature at about 100 SVL (Cooper and Ashton, 1985; see also
Petranka, 1998). Age at maturity is estimated at 5.5 yr for males, 6.5 yr for females (Cooper and

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 723

 Ashton, 1985; see Petranka, 1998). Adult waterdogs eat lampreys, ostracods, copepods and
cladocerans, snails, annelids, fishes, other species of salamanders, adult eastern worm snakes
(Carphophis amoenus amoenus), isopods, slugs, spiders, crayfish, centipedes, millipedes, and
insects such as mayflies, true flies, beetles, dragonfly and damselfly naiads, hellgrammites,
caterpillars, and caddisflies (Braswell and Ashton, 1985; Petranka, 1998).
Populations:
Number of populations and overall population size are unknown for this species (NatureServe
2008). This salamander may be locally abundant at certain sites (Bury et al. 1980).
Population Trends:
The Neuse River Waterdog is known to be declining due to water quality degradation, but
quantitative data are unavailable. Some populations are known to have been eliminated due to
water population. AmphibiaWeb (2009) states: "Historical versus current abundance is unknown,
but if high levels of pollution eliminate populations (Braswell and Ashton, 1985; see also
Petranka, 1998), low levels of pollution may reduce abundances within remaining populations."
Status:
The Neuse River Waterdog is vulnerable in North Carolina (NatureServe 2008). It is ranked as
Near Threatened by the IUCN. It lacks legal protective status.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat destruction is a major threat to the Neuse River Waterdog. Dodd (1997) lists habitat
alteration as a threat to this species. This salamander is threatened by water development projects
such as channelization and impoundments, and by industrial and urban development (Bury et al.
1980; Braswell and Ashton 1985; Braswell 1989; H. LeGrand, pers. comm., 1997 in NatureServe
2008). Bury et al. 1980 state, "Extensive plans for dams above the fall line threaten nearly all of
the localities where this species is abundant. It is threatened by both habitat destruction and
pollution" (p. 16). NatureServe (2008) reports that a significant portion of the habitat in the upper
Neuse drainage has been destroyed or degraded (Braswell 1989), and that ongoing development
threatens this species. Aquatic habitats in the Neuse River basin have been extensively degraded
by pollution from confined animal feeding operations and runoff from ongoing development
(North Carolina Office of Environmental Education 2008). The North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (2005) reports that aquatic species in the Neuse Basin are threatened by
agriculture, forestry, impoundments, water withdrawals for irrigation, development, wastewater
discharges, and increasing human population. The human population within the basin is expected
to grow by more than 867,000 by 2020 to almost 3 million people.
There has been widespread destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of imperiled amphibian
habitats in the Southeast (Vial and Saylor 1993, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994 in LaClaire 1997, p.
314). Dodd (1997) states: “The integrity of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats is important to
amphibian survival, even among species that never venture beyond a single habitat type.
Furthermore, the various life history stages (eggs, larvae, young, adults) may be differentially
susceptible or sensitive to environmental perturbations . . . Although vast areas have been cleared
in the Southeast for agriculture, industry, and urban use, there is virtually no assessment of the
landscape effects of land conversion on amphibian populations. It seems evident, however, that
habitat changes (see papers in Hackney et al. 1992, Boyce and Martin 1993), and with them
changes in aquatic amphibian populations, have been enormous” (p. 177-8).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 724

 Habitat loss and degradation obviously negatively affects amphibian populations. LaClaire (1997)
states: “There is a growing body of work documenting (amphibian) population declines on sites
where habitats have been degraded or destroyed (Vickers et al. 1985, Enge and Marion 1986, Ash
1988, Dodd 1991, Raymond and Hardy 1991, Petranka et al. 1993, Phelps and Lancia 1995,
Means et al. 1996). . . Clearly, when the habitat of a given population is destroyed, that population
has gone or will shortly go extinct. Many species may be unable to recolonize areas after local
extinctions, especially when unsuitable habitat exists between the extinct population and extant
populations” (p. 325-326).
Habitat fragmentation can lead to amphibian population extirpation by disrupting metapopulation
dynamics and preventing dispersal and rescue between source and sink habitat. Dodd (1997)
states: “Land use patterns resulting in fragmentation can influence amphibian population genetic
structure . . . if populations become overly fragmented, emigration and immigration may be
inhibited or stopped, thus preventing recolonization from source populations. . . Small isolated
populations are particularly susceptible to environmental perturbations and to stochastic variation
in demography that can lead to extinction even without external perturbations. Isolation by habitat
fragmentation thus becomes a threat to the regional persistence of species” (p. 178).
Logging is detrimental for both aquatic and terrestrial amphibian habitat because it eliminates
shade, increases soil and water temperature, alters stream flow, increases sedimentation, reduces
the input of coarse woody debris and organic matter into streams, reduces forest floor litter
(especially if litter is piled and burned), reduces soil moisture, reduces and eliminates burrows and
hiding places, and destroys wetlands. Logging also frequently involves the use of herbicides
which can be detrimental for amphibians (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html).
Logging is known to decrease amphibian abundance and reproductive success (Dodd 1997,
LaClaire 1997). LaClaire (1997) states: “Habitat destruction and degradation resulting from
timbering operations may create problems for long-term survival of imperiled amphibians
(Kramer et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1993)” (p. 327).
Aquatic amphibian populations are threatened by habitat destruction and water pollution from coal
mining activities in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and by
phosphate mining in Florida (Wallace et al. 1992, LaClaire 2007). Dodd (1997) states: “In many
instances, mining occurs directly through small streams or ponds, and mine tailings are pushed
into the larger rivers. . . Mining not only destroys aquatic amphibian habitats outright, it also
results in toxic pollution, decreased pH, and siltation of streams and rivers” (p. 180). Gore (1983)
showed that low pH and high conductivity due to mining negatively affect the distribution of
larval Desmognathus salamanders in streams on the Cumberland Plateau (in Dodd 1997).
Road construction and repair and traffic degrade amphibian habitat. Roads can divide breeding
locations from overwintering sites and increase mortality for migrating adults and dispersing
juveniles, and can disrupt metapopulation dynamics and lead to population isolation, and light and
noise from roads can disrupt breeding and feeding behaviors (Dodd 1997). Dodd (1997) states:
“Transportation corridors, especially roads, can have serious deleterious effects on amphibian
populations (Langton 1989). Road construction can lead to habitat destruction in both terrestrial
and aquatic environments, and can negatively alter breeding habitats through increased siltation.
Increased siltation can lead to increased amphibian mortality because of its own secondary
effects. For example, nearly all aquatic life was eliminated downstream after U.S. HWY 441 was

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 725

 rebuilt in 1963 in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park” (p. 180).
Overutilization:
Amphibians are collected from the wild for use as food, pets, and for the biological and medicinal
supply markets (AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/exploitation.html). Dodd
(1997) states: “Collecting specimens for the pet trade or biological laboratories probably has had
some impact on local (Southeast) amphibian populations, but few data are available” (p. 183).
Disease or predation:
Native amphibians in the Southeast potentially face predation pressures from introduced species
of fishes and from cattle egrets, armadillos, and wild hogs (Dodd 1997). Amphibian populations
can also be negatively affected by increases in populations of native predators such as raccoons
(Dodd 1997) and corvids (Liebezeit 2002). In conjunction with other threats, natural predation
could negatively impact populations.
New diseases and increased susceptibility of amphibians to existing diseases are known to be
contributing to the decline of amphibian species (Blaustein et al. 1994, Laurance et al. 1996,
Berger et al. 1998, Daszak 2000, Kiesecker et al. 2001, reviewed in AmphibiaWeb 2009). Stress
from factors such as habitat loss and fragmentation, chemical pollution, climate change, invasion
of exotic species, increased UV-B radiation, and natural population fluctuations may increase the
susceptibility of amphibians to disease (Carey 1993, Dodd 1997, Fellers et al. 2001, Kiesecker at
al. 2001, AmphibiaWeb 2009). Pathogens known to cause infectious disease in amphibians include
bacterial, fungal, viral, metazoan, water mold, and trematode agents (Wright and Whitaker 2001 in
AmphibiaWeb 2009). Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), has had
severe impacts on amphibian populations worldwide. Chytrid fungus is known to be present in the
southeastern U.S. (AmphibiaWeb 2009) and it is imperative that equipment be disinfected so that
research efforts to protect species do not inadvertently introduce this fungus or other pathogens to
imperiled amphibian populations.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that no occurences of this species are appropriately protected. Neuse
River Waterdogs are considered a Species of Special Concern in North Carolina, but this
designation does not provide the species with any regulatory protection.
Other factors:
The Neuse River Waterdog is threatened by factors which degrade water quality, including
pollution from agricultural runoff, hog farm wastes, pesticides, and industrial and urban
development (Bury et al. 1980; Braswell and Ashton 1985; Braswell 1989; H. LeGrand, pers.
comm., 1997 in NatureServe 2008). AmphibiaWeb (2009) reports that severely polluted streams
are known to have lost their populations (Braswell and Ashton, 1985; see also Petranka, 1998).
Hall et al. (1985) found metabolites of DDT and PCBs in Neuse River Waterdog tissue from the
Tar and Neuse Rivers in North Carolina-- DDE, DDD, dieldrin, cis-chlordane, trans-nonachlor,
and PCP 1254 were detected (in AmphibiaWeb 2009). The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (2005) reports that aquatic species in the Neuse Basin are threatened by non-point
source pollution from agriculture, forestry, animal waste byproducts, bank erosion, and
development. Point source pollution also threatens aquatic species. There are over 400 point
source waste discharge permits in the Neuse basin.
Other factors which threaten imperiled amphibian populations in the Southeast include water
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 726

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

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 727

 immune dysfunction (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/UVB.html).
Southeastern amphibians are also threatened by the invasion of non-native species which prey on
or compete with native amphibians.
Nonnative fishes can negatively affect amphibian populations through predation, competition, and
disease introduction. Introduced nonnative amphibians such as the marine toad (Bufo marinus) and
Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) are potentially harmful for native amphibians in the
Southeast. Rossi (1981) found that anuran species richness was reduced in an area where B.
marinus was established (in Dodd 1997). Introduced mammals, such as armadillos and wild hogs,
and introduced birds like cattle egrets “may exact a substantial toll on amphibian populations”
(Dodd 1997). Invasive fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also a potential threat for Southeastern
amphibians. Dodd (1997) states: “Ground dwelling vertebrates are especially sensitive to this
ravenous predator, and fire ants have been reported to kill endangered Houston toads (Bufo
houstonensis) as they metamorphose. Fire ants are especially abundant in the moist perimeter
surrounding ponds and lakes, and they can float in mats across ponds from vegetation clump to
vegetation clump. Fire ants have few predators and have expanded their range throughout the
Southeast” (p. 183). See: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/IntroSp.html.
Synergisms between multiple threats could contribute to the extinction of Southeast amphibians.
Multiple factors acting together have both lethal and sublethal effects
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/synergisms.html). For example, increased UV-B radiation
increases the susceptibility of amphibians to the effects of contaminants, pathogens and climate
change. Dodd (1997): “The amphibians of this area (the Southeast), and particularly the fully
aquatic species, face a multitude of threats to their long-term existence. These threats generally do
not act independently, but instead act in concert to have potentially serious long-term effects” (p.
185).
References:
Amphibiaweb. 2009. University of California, Berkeley. http://amphibiaweb.org/
Braswell, A. L. 1989. Scientific council report on the conservation status of North Carolina
amphibians and reptiles. Submitted to : Nongame Advisory Committee, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission.
Braswell, A. L., and R. E. Ashton, Jr. 1985. Distribution, ecology, and feeding habits of Necturus
lewisi (Brimley). Brimleyana 10:13-35.
Bury, R. B., C. K. Dodd, Jr., and G. M. Fellers. 1980. Conservation of the Amphibia of the
United States: a review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., Resource Publication
134. 34 pp.
Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1997. Imperiled amphibians: a historical persective. Pp. 165–200. In Benz, G.W.
and D.E. Collins (Eds.), Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication Number 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications,
Decatur, Georgia.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 728

 Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running and
M.J. Scott,
2007: North America. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change,
M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 617-652.
http://www.ipccinfo.com/wg2report_north_america.php
LaClaire, L.V. 1997. Amphibians in Peril: Resource Management in the Southeast. p. 307-321
In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern
Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and
Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
LeGrand, Harry E., Jr. Zoologist. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks
and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, 512 N. Salisbury St.,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611. 919-733-7701.
Liebezeit, Joseph R. A summary of predation by corvids on threatened and endangered species in
California and management recommendations to reduce corvid predation / principal
investigators and authors, Joseph R. Liebezeit and T. Luke George.
Sacramento : Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, 2002.
North Carolina Office of Environmental Education. 2008. Neuse River Basin.
http://www.eenorthcarolina.org/public/ecoaddress/riverbasins/neuse.150dpi.pdf
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan,
Neuse River Basin. Accessed March 9, 2010 at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan/documents/NeuseRiverBasin/NRB-Full.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 729

 Scientific Name:
Notropis ariommus
Common Name:
Popeye Shiner
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Vulnerable
Range:
Historically, the popeye shiner occurred in most of the principal drainages of the Ohio River
basin and in the western part of the Lake Erie drainage (Maumee River, Ohio) (Burkhead and
Jenkins 1991). It is now spottily distributed in the Ohio River basin including the Tennessee River
drainage. It has been extirpated from much of its former range (Boschung and Mayden 2004).
Habitat:
This fish occurs in warm, relatively clear flowing waters of large creeks and small to medium
rivers, and is closely associated with gravel substrate (NatureServe 2008). It is typically found in
runs, backwaters near appreciable current, and the head of pools (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are probably between 21 and 100 extant occurrences of
this fish, but this needs to be verified. Some of the best remaining populations occur in the Clinch
and Duck rivers in Tennessee (Boschung and Mayden 2004). Outside Kentucky and Tennessee, it
is only known from a few sites, and some of these populations have been extirpated. This fish is
seldom very common (Lee et al. 1980).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this fish is declining throughout much of its range, and estimates
a decline of up to 30 percent.
Status:
The American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008) ranks the popeye shiner as vulnerable due to
habitat loss and degradation and limited range. NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as extirpated
in Alabama, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, critically imperiled in Georgia, and Ohio, imperiled in
Virginia and West Virginia, and vulnerable in Kentucky and Tennessee. This species is spottily
distributed and much of its habitat has been degraded or destroyed by siltation, pollution, and
impoundment (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). Some peripheral occurrences have been extirpated.
Habitat destruction:
Several occurrences of the popeye shiner have been extirpated due to habitat loss and degradation,
and remaining populations are threatened by ongoing habitat degrading activities. In the upper
Tennessee River drainage, habitat has been degraded or destroyed by siltation, pollution, and
impoundment (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). Boschung and Mayden (2004) state, “It owes its
demise in Alabama to siltation resulting from the inundation of large, gravel-bottomed creeks by
impoundment of the Tennessee River." This species was impacted by a toxic spill into the Clinch
River in 1967, from which it has not recovered well (NatureServe 2008). It has also been
negatively impacted by toxic pollution in the North Fork of the Holston (Burkhead and Jenkins
1991).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 730

 Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss and degradation as a threat to this species.
EPA (2002) reports that coal mining activities and agricultural practices, past and present, are
having adverse impacts on stream habitats in the Clinch watershed, where some of the best
populations of this species remain (Boschung and Mayden 2004). The popeye shiner is threatened
by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005). Mountaintop removal can fill in streams
entirely and can cause significant downstream pollution. Pollutants associated with mine runoff
can disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota (Palmer et al. 2010). Elevated selenium concentrations
downstream of mountaintop removal operations can cause teratogenic deformities in larval fish (Palmer
et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates,
eliminating food sources for fish (Wood 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which adequately protect this species, and
NatureServe (2008) reports that it is unknown whether any occurrences are appropriately
protected.
References:
Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Burkhead, N. M., and R. E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pages 321-409 in K. Terwilliger
(coordinator). Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. McDonald and
Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Clinch and Powell Valley watershed
ecological risk assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC;
EPA/600/R-01/050. Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
<http://www.epa.gov/ncea>
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 731

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in
Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed
Threatened and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R05002.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 732

 Scientific Name:
Notropis ozarcanus
Common Name:
Ozark Shiner
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Vulnerable
Range:
This fish occurs in the Ozark Uplands in southern Missouri and northern Arkansas. Most localities
are in the White and Black river systems in the White River drainage (Robison and Buchanan
1988, Pflieger 1997). This species was formerly known from the headwaters of the St. Francis
River in southeastern Missouri. A survey in Arkansas in the mid-1990s indicated that populations
still occur in the Buffalo, Spring, and Strawberry river systems, but this species is possibly
extirpated from the upper White River above or below Beaver Reservoir, War Eagle Creek, North
Fork of the White River below Lake Norfork, Eleven Point River, and the Current River (Robison
1995).
Habitat:
This fish occurs in high-gradient small to medium clear rivers with permanent strong flow. It is
associated with riffles, runs, and flowing pools in slight to moderate current over firm silt-free
substrates. In midwater, it occurs in schools. It has been eliminated from many impounded areas
(NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
In Missouri, this species was historically known from 5 principal drainages (Pflieger 1997).
Currently large numbers exist in only one drainage, and there are an estimated 6-20 extant
occurrences. Pflieger (1997) mapped 19 pre-1945 collection sites and 23 post-1945 sites. Lee
et al. (1980) mapped 54 collection sites. This fish is extant in a least a few river systems in
Arkansas, where Robison and Buchanan (1988) mapped 33 collection sites for 1960-1987 and 9
pre-1960 sites.
Total population size is unknown. This fish can be locally common, especially in the upper
Current River, but typically occurs in low abundance (Page and Burr 1991, Robison 1995). In
Arkansas, an extensive status survey with 104 collection samples from 1994-1995 resulted in the
collection of 91 individuals, 67 of which were taken from the Buffalo River (Robison 1995).
Robison (1995) summarized the number of individuals in museum collections that were taken
from Arkansas by decade: 242 individuals during 1938-1939; 121 individuals during 1950-1959;
143 individuals during 1960-1969; 426 individuals during 1970-1979; 13 individuals during
1980-1989; and 201 individuals during 1990-1995.
Population Trends:
The Ozark shiner is declining in Missouri, with large numbers now occurring in only one of its 5
historically occupied drainages (J. Sternburg, pers. comm., 1997 cited in NatureServe 2008). In
the White River, which was a former stronghold for this fish, it is now on the verge of extirpation.
It may be declining in the St. Francis River, and it is probably extirpated in the Eleven Point and
Black rivers (Robison 1995, Pflieger 1997, J. Sternburg, pers. comm., 1997 cited in NatureServe
2008). This fish has also declined in range and abundance in Arkansas, where it has been
extirpated from several streams. The Buffalo River continues to support a rather large and

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 733

 widespread population (Robison 1995). In the short-term this species has declined by up to 30
percent, and it has experienced a long-term decline of 25-75 percent (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This fish is spottily distributed in small populations, is declining in some areas and has been
extirpated from numerous locations. It is ranked by NatureServe (2008) as imperiled in Arkansas
and Missouri. The American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008) classifiy this species as
vulnerable due to habitat loss and degradation.
Habitat destruction:
The primary threat to the Ozark shiner is impoundments. Impoundments destroyed habitat for this
species and their operation continues to threaten this fish through siltation and releases of cold
water (Robison and Buchanan 1988, Pflieger 1997). This fish was extirpated from a number of
stream reaches that have been impounded and also from downstream reaches miles downstream
which are affected by cold water releases (Robison and Buchanan 1988). The shiner is also
threatened by increased turbidity and siltation from surrounding land practices such as
clearcutting, farming, development, and road building (NatureServe 2008). Gravel removal
operations and increased resource demands driven by human population growth also threaten this
fish (NatureServe 2008). The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (2005) report that this fish is
threatened by habitat destruction from dams, resource extraction, and road construction, and by
sedimentation from forestry, grazing, and resource extraction. The Missouri Dept. of
Conservation (2010) reports that fish in the White River watershed are threatened by urbanization,
livestock grazing, gravel mining, and reservoir operations. Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss and
degradation as a threat to this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which adequately protect this species. NatureServe
(2008) reports that few to several occurrences may be appropriately protected, because much of
Jack's Fork and the Current River are part of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (J. Sternburg,
pers. comm., 1997), and the Buffalo River is protected by the National Park Service (Robison
1995).
Other factors:
The Ozark shiner is threatened by water pollution from nutrient enrichment from poultry and swine
operations, and by siltation from impoundments and a variety of land use activities (Arkansas
Game and Fish Commission 2005, NatureServe 2008, Missouri Dept. of Conservation 2010).
References:
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Aquatic Fish
Report Species Account. Accessed March 4, 2010 at:
http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/09b_fish.pdf
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 734

 Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Missouri Department of Conservation. 2010. White River Watershed Inventory and Assessment,
Biotic Communities. Accessed March 10, 2010 at:
http://www.mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/documents/whriver/hardcopy/390bctxt.pdf
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Pflieger, W. L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri. Revised edition. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Jefferson City. vi + 372 pp.
Robison, H. W. 1995. Status survey of the Ozark Shiner, NOTROPIS OZARCANUS meek, in
Arkansas. Final Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 48
pp.
Robison, H. W., and T. M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press,
Fayetteville, Arkansas. 536 pp.
Sternburg, J. Wildlife Ecologist, Missouri Natural Heritage Program, Missouri Department of
Conservation, 2901 West Truman Blvd., P. O. Box 180, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180. 573751-4115.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 735

 Scientific Name:
Notropis perpallidus
Common Name:
Peppered Shiner
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The peppered shiner is patchily distributed within its narrow range in tributaries of the Red and
Ouachita rivers in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In the Red River drainage, it is
known from the Little and Kiamichi rivers. In the Ouachita drainage, it is known from the Saline,
Ouachita, Caddo, and Little Missouri rivers (Page and Burr 1991, Lee et al. 1980). Despite
extensive surveys, Robison (2006) did not detect this species in Oklahoma, and only detected it in
the Ouachita mainstem and the Saline River system in Arkansas.
Habitat:
This fish occurs in pools and slow runs of warm, clear, small to medium rivers with gravel
substrate, frequently near aquatic plants. It is associated with lees of islands and other
obstructions out of the main current (Lee et al. 1980, Page and Burr 1991), and with deeper
(more than 50 cm), slower (less than 0.3 cm/sec) areas (Wagner et al. 1987).
Populations:
Lee et al. (1980) mapped 19 collection sites for this species. As of 1981, there were 26
documented occurrences in Arkansas, and 38 collection sites in Oklahoma, but Robison (2006)
did not detect this fish at all in Oklahoma, and only detected it in two river systems in Arkansas.
Despite 81 collection efforts, Robison (2006) did not document any extant populations in
Oklahoma or in the Little Missouri River, Caddo River, Kiamichi River, Mountain Fork River, or
Glover River in Arkansas. Robison (2006) states: “After careful review of all of the major
museum holdings of the peppered shiner available, 2 years of intensive field work collecting
peppered shiners, review of all pertinent literature, and discussions with virtually all of the major
collectors of peppered shiners in Arkansas, it is apparent that the peppered shiner has declined in
abundance throughout its historical range in Arkansas. No specimens of the peppered shiner were
collected in Oklahoma.”
Total population size is unknown. This fish was historically rare and occurs in small populations at
low densities (Wagner et al. 1987). Robison (2006) captured only 17 peppered shiners in 81
sampling efforts in Oklahoma and Arkansas.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species has declined by up to 30 percent, but Robison
(2006) did not find this species at any of its historical occurrences in Oklahoma or in the Little
Missouri River, Caddo River, Kiamichi River, Mountain Fork River, or Glover River in Arkansas.
This fish has never been common and has declined over the past 30 years in both Arkansas and
Oklahoma (Robison 2006).
Status:
This fish has a narrow range, occurs in low densities, and has been extirpated from many historical
locations (Robison 2006). NatureServe (2008) ranks this fish as imperiled in Arkansas and
Oklahoma. Robison and Buchanan (1988) categorized this fish as threatened in their discussion of

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 736

 rare and endangered fishes in Arkansas. The peppered shiner is classified as vulnerable the
American Fisheries Assoication (Jelks et al. 2008) due to habitat loss and degradation.
Habitat destruction:
The peppered shiner is very susceptible to environmental disturbance (Robison and Buchanan
1988). Jester et al. (1992) consider the peppered shiner to be intolerant to degradation in habitat
and water quality. Much of the shiner’s habitat has been destroyed and modified by impoundments
and reservoir construction (Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 2005, NatureServe 2008). Cold
water releases from the dams are an ongoing threat (Robison 2006). This fish is also threatened
by increases in turbidity and siltation which have occurred in the upland streams it inhabits due to
poor land use practices such as road building, farming, clearing of land for pasture, clearcutting,
destruction of riparian buffer strips and other human perturbations which continue in these
watersheds (Robison 2006). In a number of streams, the shiner is also threatened by gravel
removal operations (Filipek and Oliver 1994) and by intensive silviculture (C. Taylor 1997 pers.
comm. cited in NatureServe 2008). Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss and degradation as a threat
to this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect the peppered shiner, and no
occurrences are protected (NatureServe 2008).
Other factors:
The peppered shiner is threatened by pollution from nutrient enrichment from the enormous
increase in poultry and swine operations surrounding its habitat, and from siltation from
impoundments and from a variety of land use activities (Robison 2006).
References:
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Aquatic Fish
Report Species Account. Accessed March 4, 2010 at:
http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/09b_fish.pdf
Filipek, S. and M. Oliver. 1994. Facts about in-stream gravel mining, Arkansas Wildlife 25: 1617.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Jester, D.B., A.A. Echelle, W. J. Matthews, J. Pigg, C.M. Scott, and K.D. Collins. 1992. The
fishes of Oklahoma, their gross habitats, and their tolerances of degradation in water quality and
habitat. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy
of Science 72:7-19.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 737

 Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Robison, H. W., and T. M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press,
Fayetteville, Arkansas. 536 pp.
Robison, H.W. 2006. Status Survey of the Peppered Shiner, Notropis perpallidus Hubbs and
Black, in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.60, 2006.
Taylor, C. M. The University of Oklahoma, Department of Zoology, 730 Van Vleet Oval, Rm.
314, Norman, OK. Pers. comm.
Vaughn, C. C. Aquatic Zoologist. Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory, Oklahoma Biological
Survey, 111 East Chesapeake Street, University of Oklahoma, Norman OK 73019-0575.
(405)325-1985.
Wagner, B. A., A. A. Echelle, and O. E. Maughan. 1987. Abundance and habitat use of an
uncommon fish, NOTROPIS PERPALLIDUS (Cyprinidae): comparison with sympatric
congeners. Southwest Nat. 32:251-268.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 738

 Scientific Name:
Notropis suttkusi
Common Name:
Rocky Shiner
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Vulnerable
Range:
The rocky shiner is endemic to the Ouachita Uplands, including tributaries of the Red River in
southeastern Oklahoma and southwestern Arkansas (Humphries and Cashner 1994, Wood et al.
2002, Miller and Robison 2004). Populations are known from the Blue, Kiamichi, Little and
Muddy Boggy rivers (Humphries and Cashner 1994).
Habitat:
The rocky shiner is found in clear rivers and creeks of moderate to high gradient with gravel and
rubble substrates (Humphries and Cashner 1994).
Populations:
Humphries and Cashner (1994) documented 19 sites in four drainages. More recent information
is not available.
Population Trends:
There is no information on population trends in the rocky shiner.
Status:
According to Humphries and Cashner (1994), "the restricted range" of the rocky shiner is cause
for concern over the long-term survival of its populations. Jelks et al. (2008) list the species as
vulnerable.
Habitat destruction:
Humphries and Cashner (1994) identify impoundment of rivers, farmland runoff, gravel
operations, and stream channelization as factors in the diminishment of habitat for gravel
dependent species like the rocky shiner. Jelks et al. (2008) identify the present or threatened
destruction, modification or reduction of habitat or range as a factor in the rocky shiner being
vulnerable.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There is no legal or regulatory protection for the rocky shiner.
Other factors:
Jelks et al. (2008) identify a narrow, restricted range as a factor in the rocky shiner being
considered vulnerable.
References:
Humphries, J. M., and R. C. Cashner. 1994. NOTROPIS SUTTKUSI, a new cyprinid from the
Ouachita Uplands of Oklahoma and Arkansas, with comments on the status of Ozarkian
populations of N. RUBELLUS. Copeia 1994:82-90.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 739

 Miller, R. J., and H. W. Robison. 2004. Fishes of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman. 450 pp.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.
Wood, R. M., R. L. Mayden, R. H. Matson, B. R. Kuhajda, and S. R. Layman. 2002. Systematics
and biogeography of the Notropis rubellus species group (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Bulletin of the
Alabama Museum of Natural History 22:37-80.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 740

 Scientific Name:
Noturus fasciatus
Common Name:
Saddled Madtom
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Vulnerable
Range:
The saddled madtom has a very small range in the Duck River system and adjacent western
tributaries of the Tennessee River in Hardin and Wayne counties, Tennessee (Burr et al. 2005). It
was historically recorded in additional areas, including a few records from the mainstem Duck
River in Bedford, Henry, and Marshall counties, five localities in the Indian Creek system and one
locality in Rogers Creek (Burr et al. 2005).
Habitat:
Burr et al. (2005) state that "critical habitat for Noturus fasciatus includes second and third order
streams with clear water, dark gravel and slabrock substrates, and abundant riffle habitat." During
the day, the species is typically found buried in gravel, cobble, rubble, or slate substrates in riffle
habitats, whereas at night the species is thought to forage in pools or pool margins (Burr et al.
2005).
Populations:
Burr et al. (2005) extensively sampled for the saddled madtom from 1992-1994 and found the
species at "few sites" and a "low number of specimens per site (mean= 2.1)," leading the authors to
conclude that either the madtom had "declined dramatically in abundance and range over the past
10-20 years; or our seasonal timing, collecting techniques, and efforts differ significantly relative
to those of previous collectors." They further speculated that one reason they may have
undersampled the madtom was that they had sampled during the day, rather than at night when the
species is easier to capture (Burr et al. 2005). Despite this limitation, however, Burr et al. (2005)
state that "repeated diurnal collections by BMB have consistently yielded ten or more N.
fasciatus from several localities in the previous 15 years," indicating that their surveys do
accurately document that "the species has disappeared from some sites over the past 10-20 years."
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) concludes that the saddled madtom has experienced a long-term, moderate
decline of 25-50 percent, consistent with findings of Burr et al. (2005) that the species has
dissapeared from some sites.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists the saddled madtom as imperiled in Tennessee because of its "restricted
range in the Duck River drainage, Tennessee," because it is "known from only 13 sites since
1992," and because "numbers very low where found." Jelks et al. (2008) list the madtom as
vulnerable because of the present or threatened destruction, modification, or reduction of habitat
or range and because of a narrow, restricted range.
Habitat destruction:
Jelks et al. (2008) classify the species as vulnerable in part because of the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or reduction of habitat or range. Burr et al. (2005) identify
"channelization, removal of riparian vegetation, and agricultural runoff" as potential threats to the

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 741

 saddled madtom, which they note are "all common occurrences in eastern North American
streams," and moreover that "these disturbances have the greatest impact on small, high quality
streams, critical habitat of Noturus fasciatus."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) determines that "few occurrences" are "appropriately protected and managed."
Tennessee lists the species as threatened. This designation, however, provides no regulatory
protection for the madtom's habitat.
Other factors:
Other threats to the continued existence of the saddled madtom include a narrow restricted range,
drought, and organic pollution (Burr et al. 2005, Jelks et al. 2008, NatureServe 2008).
Recognizing that factors contributing to range decline of Noturus fasciatus were not investigated,
Burr et al. (2005) observed that "severe drought in the late 1980s could have contributed to local
extirpation" because "peak spawning for N. fasciatus is probably in June and July," when low flows
"might have disrupted nesting and reduced recruitment, especially in smaller tributaries lacking
permanent spring input." This indicates the saddled madtom is potentially threatened by future
droughts and increasing water demands from a growing human population.
Burr et al. (2005) also cited organic pollution as a potential threat, stating: "the wide variety of
complex organic chemicals added to streams may interfere with the highly developed olfactory
sense of madtoms, disrupting behavioral patterns important for survival."
References:
Burr, B. M., C. A. Taylor, and K. M. Cook. 1993. Status survey of the Coppercheek darter
(Etheostoma aquali), striated darter (Etheostoma Sriatum), and saddled madtom (Notorus sp. cf.
elegans) in the Duck River drainage, Tennessee. Unpublished report submitted to: Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency, Nongame and Endangered Species, Nashville, Tennessee. 77 pp.
Burr, B. M., D. J. Eisenhour, and J. M. Grady. 2005. Two new species of Noturus (Siluriformes:
Ictaluridae) from the Tennessee River drainage: description, distribution, and conservation
status. Copeia 2005:783-802.
Eisenhour, D. J., B. M. Burr, K. M. Cook, and C. A. Taylor. 1996. Conservation status review of
the saddled madtom, Notorus (rabida) sp. (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae) in the Duck River system,
Tennessee. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 71(2):41-46.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 742

 Scientific Name:
Noturus furiosus
Common Name:
Carolina Madtom
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
DD - Data deficient

Range:
The Carolina madtom occurs in the Neuse and Tar river drainages in North Carolina in the
Piedmont and inner Coastal Plain. Most records are from the vicinity of the Fall Line (Lee et al.
1980). It has been severely reduced in the Tar drainage and is mostly eliminated from the Neuse.
Habitat:
Lee et al. (1980) report that this fish usually occurs over fine to coarse sand substrate in very
shallow water with little or no current. Page and Burr (1991) describe its habitat as sand-, gravel-,
and detritus-bottomed riffles and runs in small to medium rivers. Midway (2008) reports that it is
found under cover in moderately flowing, sand and gravel-lined streams and rivers, with cobble
being the most frequent cover structure. Burr et al. (1989) report that nests have been found in
cans and bottles in pools and runs (Burr et al. 1989).
Populations:
The Carolina madtom was detected at 42 distinct localities during the early 1980's, 33 of which
have been recollected since 1982. The madtom is difficult to detect during high water conditions,
and may not have been detected at some sites where it was present (Burr and Lee 1985). More
recent surveys have revealed fewer occurrences of this species (Starnes 2002). Total population
size is unknown. Lee et al. (1980) describe this species as generally uncommon or rare. Page and
Burr (1991) state that it can be locally common, but is disappearing from some localities.
Population densities are, for the most part, unknown and assumed to be low (Midway 2008). Burr
and Stoeckel (1999) note that, Noturus spp. densities never reach those associated with most
other stream-dwelling fishes. This species is mostly eliminated from the Neuse Basin.
Population Trends:
The Carolina madtom has declined by up to 30 percent in the short-term and has undergone a
long-term decline of 25-75 percent (NatureServe 2008). Midway (2008) did not detect this
species at 2 of 3 sampled reaches in the Neuse Basin, and reports that the Neuse population has
shown recent significant decline. Recent work by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission found Carolina madtom abundance in the Neuse Basin to be much lower than
historical records indicate, suggesting local extirpations (Midway 2008). NatureServe (2008)
states, “It appears that this madtom has severely declined in the Neuse basin and thus may be
effectively extirpated from over half of its overall range.”
Status:
The Carolina madtom is declining within its very limited range. It is ranked as imperiled by
NatureServe (2008). The Southeastern Fishes Council (2007) recommends threatened status for this fish
due to limited overall range and impending threats. The American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008)
rank the Carolina madtom as threatened due to habitat loss and narrow range. This fish is listed as
threatened by the state of North Carolina. At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center
for Biological Diversity, there was agreement that the Carolina Madtom should be listed as endangered
(SFC and CBD 2010).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 743

 Habitat destruction:
The Carolina madtom is particularly sensitive to habitat loss and degradation because of its
restricted range and small clutch size (Angermeier 1995, Burr and Stoeckel 1999). Within its
limited range, this species faces many threats.
Populations in the Neuse drainage have been negatively affected by the construction of Falls Lake,
which has significantly altered water temperatures below the dam. Thermal alteration and general
pollution problems around Raleigh have reduced habitat in the upper Neuse River (NatureServe
2008). The Neuse is routinely considered to be an endangered basin (American Rivers Foundation
2007) with impacts such as urban wastewater, fertilizer, industrial development and animal
operations all contributing to eutrophication (Pinckney et al. 1997, Paerl et al. 1998). In-stream
habitat in the Neuse Basin has been lost and degraded by forestry, urban and residential
development, impoundments, and effluent (North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources 2002). Agriculture and farming operations have contributed to habitat
degradation, and development is rapidly increasing (Midway 2008). The North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (2005) reports that aquatic species in the Neuse Basin are threatened by
agriculture, forestry, impoundments, water withdrawals for irrigation, development, wastewater
discharges, and increasing human population. The human population within the basin is expected
to grow by more than 867,000 by 2020 to almost 3 million people.
Development, confined animal feeding operations, and forestry also threaten aquatic species in
the Tar River basin, but to a lesser extent than the Neuse (Starnes 2002). Aquatic species in the
Tar River basin are threatened by erosion, sedimentation, channelization, agriculture, irrigation
withdrawals, confined animal feeding operations, and increasing human population growth and
development pressure (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 2005b).
Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss as a threat to this species.
Disease or predation:
In conjunction with habitat loss and degradation, the Carolina madtom is increasingly threatened by
predation from the introduced flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) (Guier et al. 1981, Thomas
1993, Brewster 2007, Pine et al. 2007, Midway 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect the Carolina madtom. This fish is
listed as threatened by the state of North Carolina, but this designation does not provide the
species with substantial regulatory protection. NatureServe (2008) reports that no occurrences are
appropriately protected and managed.
Other factors:
This fish is threatened by point and non-point source pollution from a variety of sources,
especially poultry and hog farms, rampant development, and forestry (North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (2005a, 2005b). Braswell (1989) did not detect this fish in a historical
location that has been impacted by municipal and industrial effluents. Midway (2008) suggests that
increasing predation from introduced flathead catfish may also be threatening the Carolina
madtom, stating: “[A] second potential cause of Carolina madtom decline in the Neuse Basin is the
recent introduction of flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris. North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission biologists working in these systems have noted Carolina madtom declines in the
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 744

 basin’s larger river segments that have historically held populations. Flathead catfish typically
inhabit these large rivers and have been documented to forage on Noturus spp. (Guier et al. 1981;
Brewster 2007); in some cases near eradication of native ictalurid species have been recorded
(Thomas 1993). Further, simulation modeling suggests that flathead catfish suppress native fish
abundance in streams by 5–50% through predatory and competitive interactions (Pine et al. 2007).”
References:
American Rivers Foundation. 2007. Report on the 20 most threatened American rivers.
American River Foundation, New York.
Angermeier, P. L. 1995. Ecological attributes of extinction-prone species: loss of freshwater
fishes of Virginia. Conservation Biology 9:143–158.
Braswell, A. L. 1989. Scientific council report on the conservation status of North Carolina
amphibians and reptiles. Submitted to : Nongame Advisory Committee, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission.
Brewster, J. R. 2007. Trophic relations of introduced flathead catfish in a North Carolina
piedmont river. Master’s thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
Burr, B. M., and D. S. Lee. 1985. A final report on the status survey of the Carolina madtom,
NOTURUS FURIOSUS. Sbumitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Burr, B. M., and J. N. Stoeckel. 1999. The natural history of madtoms (genus Noturus), North
America’s diminutive catfishes. Pages 51–101 in E. R. Irwin, W. A.
Hubert, C. F. Rabeni, H. L. J. Schramm, and T. Coon, editors. Catfish 2000: Proceedings of the
International Ictalurid Symposium. Symposium 24. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Burr, M. Brooks, et al., 1989. Distribution, biology, conservation status of the carolina madtom,
NOTORUS FURIOSUS, an endemic North Carolina catfish. Brimleyana, No. 15:57-86.
Guier, R. C., L. E. Nichols, and R. T. Rachels. 1981. Biological investigation of flathead catfish
in the Cape Fear River. Proceedings of the Annual Conference
Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 35:607–621.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Midway, S.R. 2008. Habitat Ecology of the Carolina Madtom, Noturus furiosus, an Imperiled
Endemic Stream Fish. Masters Thesis, North Carolina State University. Accessed March 9, 2010
at: http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-12032008-195315/unrestricted/etd.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 745

 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2002. Neuse River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan,
Neuse River Basin. Accessed March 9, 2010 at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan/documents/NeuseRiverBasin/NRB-Full.pdf
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005b. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan,
Tar-Pimlico River Basin. Accessed March 9, 2010 at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan/documents/Tar-PamlicoRiverBasin/TPRB-Full.pdf
Paerl, H. W., J. L. Pinckney, J. M. Fear, and B. L. Peierls. 1998. Ecosystem responses to internal
and watershed organic matter loading: consequences for hypoxia in the eutrophying Neuse River
Estuary, North Carolina, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 166:17–25.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Pinckney J. L., D. F. Millie, B. T. Vinyard, H. W. Paerl. 1997. Environmental controls of
phytoplankton bloom dynamics in the Neuse River estuary, North Carolina, USA. Canadian
Journal of Aquatic Science 54:2491-2501
Pine, W. E, III, T. J. Kwak, and J. A. Rice. 2007. Modeling management scenarios and the effects
of an introduced apex predator on a coastal riverine fish community. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 136:105–120.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.
Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings. 2007. Number 49, July 2007. Accessed March 9,
2010 at: http://ichthyology.usm.edu/sfc/proceedings/sfcpro49.pdf
Starnes, W. 2002. North Carolina Wildlife Resouces Commission - Nongame Wildlife Advisory
Committee Report. 6 Nov. 2002.
Thomas, M. E. 1993. Monitoring the effects of introduced flathead catfish on sport fish
populations in the Altamaha River, Georgia. Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeaster
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47:531–538.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 746

 Scientific Name:
Noturus gilberti
Common Name:
Orangefin Madtom
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The orangefin madtom occurs in the Ridge and Valley and upper Piedmont regions of the upper
Roanoke River drainage, including the Roanoke River proper and the Pigg, Mayo, and Dan
systems, in Virginia and North Carolina (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
Habitat:
This fish occurs in swift riffles with small cobble substrate. Because it occupies the interstitial
spaces among the cobbles, it is not found in areas with large amounts of sand and silt (Simonson
and Neves 1992). Burkhead and Jenkins (1991) describe this species' habitat as medium-sized,
moderate gradient, montane and upper Piedmont streams, with the largest populations in streams
that are clear. Eggs are presumably deposited under loose rubble.
Ecology:
The orangefin madtom consistently co-occurs with the Roanoke darter (Percina roanoka)
(Simonson and Neves 1992).
Populations:
Lee et al. (1980) mapped 13 collection sites for this fish. Butler (2002) reports 5 sites for this
species in North Carolina, all in the Little Dan River, 23 sites from the upper Roanoke River
system in Virginia, and 13 sites in the upper James River system, where this fish was likely
introduced. Burkhead and Jenkins (1991) list viable populations as those in the Roanoke River
from Salem upstream, through the South Fork of the Roanoke River, into the lower Bottom and
Goose creeks; lower Big Chestnut Creek and a nearby Pigg River site; the Dan River from its
gorge in the Blue Ridge downstream into North Carolina; and the South Mayo River and North
Fork of South Mayo River within or just above Stuart.
Total population size is unknown. Jenkins & Burkhead (1991) state that this fish is rare to
uncommon in portions of the Roanoke River drainage, and uncommon to common in Craig Creek
in the James River drainage.
Population Trends:
North Carolina's Wildlife Action Plan (2005) reports that this species is declining in North
Carolina. Butler (2002) reports that it is declining in its native range, but expanding in the area
where it has been introduced. Most populations apparently are stable, but Jenkins and Burkhead
(1994) report significant changes in abundance and distribution in recent decades. The orangefin
madtom is apparently extirpated in the heavily silted lower North Fork of the Roanoke River and
in the lower Roanoke River below Salem, lower Little Dan River, and upper Smith River
(Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
Status:
This species is ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008) due to
habitat loss and limited range. Etnier (1997) states that it warrants federal protective status. It is

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 747

 listed as endangered by the state of North Carolina, and as threatened by the state of Virginia.
NatureServe (2008) ranks it as critically imperiled in North Carolina and imperiled in Virginia.
Habitat destruction:
Within its limited range, this species faces multiple threats. Habitat suitability for this fish is
marginal in the South Mayo River and the upper Roanoke River system, particularly in the North
Fork of the Roanoke River (Simonson and Neves 1992). The orangefin madtom is threatened by
channelization, impoundment, and dewatering (NatureServe 2008). In North Carolina, this fish is
restricted to the upper Dan River drainage where it is threatened by cold water releases from
dams, which could disrupt its reproductive cycle (North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission 2005). Fish in the Roanoke Basin are threatened by sedimentation from agriculture,
forestry, and construction. Fish and other aquatic species in the basin are also threatened by
increasing human population growth and demand for fresh water. Demand for water is expected to
increase as much as 55 percent by 2020 (North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission 2005).
Fish in Virginia's Northern Ridge and Valley province are threatened by siltation, mine wastes,
industrial and municipal effluent pollution, and agricultural and urban runoff (Virginia Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries 2006). Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss as a threat to this species.
Overutilization:
Burkhead and Jenkins (1991) report bait-seining as a threat to the orangefin madtom.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This fish is listed as endangered by the state of North Carolina, and as threatened by the state of
Virginia but these designations do not convey substantial protection to the species or its habitat. It
is a federal Species of Concern, but this category carries no regulatory protection.
Other factors:
The orangefin madtom is threatened by pollution from sedimentation, various forms of chronic
pollution, and catastrophic chemical spills (NatureServe 2008). There are fish consumption
advisories in the Roanoke Basin due to contamination from dioxin, selenium, and mercury from
coal ash ponds and other sources (North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission 2005). Elevated
selenium concentrations can cause teratogenic deformities in larval fish (Palmer et al. 2010).
Fish in the basin are also threatened by pollution from municipal wastewater treatment plants,
industrial facilities, and stormwater runoff.
Populations of orangefin madtom are particularly susceptible to extirpation due to this species’
low reproductive rate and short life span (Simonson 1997, Simonson and Neves 1992, Simonson
1987).
References:
Burkhead, N. M., and R. E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pages 321-409 in K. Terwilliger
(coordinator). Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. McDonald and
Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Butler, R.S. 2002. Imperiled Fishes of the Southern Appalachian Ecosystem, with Emphasis on
the Non-Federally Listed Fauna. Prepared for the Southern Appalachian Ecosystem Team U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina Field Office.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 748

 Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland. xxiii + 1079 pp.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan,
Priority Species. Accessed March 11, 2010 at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan/documents/PriortySpecies.pdf
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan,
Roanoke River Basin. Accessed March 11, 2010 at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/plan/documents/RoanokeRiverBasin/RRB-FULL.pdf
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Simonson, T. D. 1987. Distribution, ecology, and reproductive biology of the orangefin madtom
(Noturus gilberti). M.S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg.
Simonson, T. D. 1997. Orangefin madtom. Pages 15-16 in E. F. Menhinick and A. L. Braswell,
editors. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North Carolina. Part IV. A reevaluation of the
freshwater fishes. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences and the
North Carolina Biological Survey No. 11.
Simonson, T. D., and R. J. Neves. 1992. Habitat suitability and reproductive traits of the
orangefin madtom NOTURUS GILBERTI (Pisces: Ictaluridae). American Midland Naturalist
127:115-24.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2006. Virginia's Wildlife Action Plan,
Northern Ridge and Valley. Accessed Jan. 29, 2010 at: http://bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-actionplan/chapter-7.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 749

 Scientific Name:
Noturus gladiator
Common Name:
Piebald Madtom
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Vulnerable
Range:
The piebald madtom is a recently described species that is limited to the coastal plain of
Tennessee and Mississippi (Thomas and Burr 2004). The species historically occurred in seven
river systems, but is now limited to the Wolf, Hatchie and Obion River systems (Thomas and Burr
2004). It is likely extirpated from the Loosahatchie River (last record, 1954), Yazoo River
drainge (last record, 1978), and Big Black River drainage (last record, 1983) (SFC and CBD
2010).
Habitat:
According to Thomas and Burr (2004), the piebald madtom is found in the mainstem of small to
medium sized rivers and the lower reaches of their tributaries. They state, "[i]n our sampling
experience, we have observed that the species is most commonly associated with moderate
velocities, moderate depth (about 60 cm), clean sand or clay substrata, and cover in the form of
leaf packs, brush, and log jams."
Populations:
Thomas and Burr (2004) determine that "[m]ost collections have been from the relatively less
disturbed portions of the Hatchie, Wolf, and Obion River drainages. Although never locally
abundant, it has been taken with greatest consistency in the middle and upper Hatchie and Wolf
River drainages."
Population Trends:
The piebald madtom has been extirpated from four of the seven river systems it is historically
known from (Thomas and Burr 2004).
Status:
Jelks et al. (2008) list the piebald madtom as vulnerable because of habitat loss and a small range.
NatureServe (2008) lists it as vulnerable in Tennessee and critically imperiled in Mississippi,
further noting that the species has been "extirpated in some areas" and that a "significant portion of
historical range has degraded habitat conditions." It is state listed as endangered by the Kentucky
Nature Preserves Commission and is a species of "greatest conservation need" in Kentucky's
SWG Wildlife Action Plan. At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for
Biological Diversity, there was support for listing this species as threatened (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
Jelks et al. (2008) list the piebald madtom as vulnerable because of the present or threatened
destruction, modification or reduction of habitat or range. NatureServe (2008) cites Rakes and
Shute (2001) as concluding that the Tuscumbia River and lower Hatchie River sites are "severely
degraded by poor agricultural and forestry practices." The species has been extirpated from four
of the seven river systems in which it formerly occurred likely because of degradation of
watershed conditions.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 750

 Primary threats are channelization and removal of riparian vegetation that results in increased
sedimentation and decrease in instream woody debris cover. Primary activities associated with
this disturbance are poor agricultural and forestry practices (SFC and CBD 2010). Watersheds in
Mississippi where this madtom occurs are tremondously degraded from erosion and headcutting
and heavily altered stream hydrology related to impoundments, channelization and other factors
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The Piebald Madtom is listed as a species “Deemed in Need of Management” by the Tennessee
Natural Heritage Program and endangered by the state of Kentucky, but these designations do not
require a recovery plan, critical habitat designation, or agency consultation. Apart from the
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge, lands containing habitats throughout the species’ range are
under private ownership (SFC and CBD 2010).
Other factors:
Jelks et al. (2008) list the piebald madtom as vulnerable because of a narrow, restricted range.
Simlarly, Thomas and Burr (2008) conclude that "[b]ecause N. gladiator has a relatively small
geographic range, exists in naturally low population numbers, and there has been deterioration in
significant portions of its habitat, we recommend a conservation status of vulnerable, based on
national and global criteria." Thomas and Burr (2004) further observe that the species is vulnerable
to local extinctions because of poor environmental quality in the lower reaches of streams it
inhabits, and because its 'equilibrium' life history strategy (small clutch sizes, large eggs, extreme
parental care, and small body size) makes it susceptible to sudden changes in flow regimes, spates
of siltation in potential nesting reaches, and a concomintant loss in recruitment from the relatively
few large males that nest and reproduce.
References:
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission 2005. Rare and extirpated biota of Kentucky.
Available http://www.naturepreserves.ky.gov. (Accessed: March, 2010)
Kentucky's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 2005. Kentucky Department of Fish
and Wildlife Resources, #1 Sportsman's Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.
http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/ (Date updated 9/21/2005)
Parsons, G. R. 1994. Notes on the status and life history of the northern madtom, Noturus
stigmosus, in Mississippi. Proceedings of the Southeastern Fishes Council 30:1-3.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 751

 (Ibid.)Rakes, P. L., and J. R. Shute. 2001. Distribution of the Coastal Plain population of the northern
madtom, Noturus stigmosus, in the Hatchie River system, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Unpublished report to Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 24 pp.
Ross, S. T. (with W. M. Brennaman, W. T. Slack, M. T. O'Connell, and T. L. Peterson). 2001. The
inland fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi. xx + 624 pp.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.
Thomas, M. R., and B. M. Burr. 2004. Noturus gladiator, a new species of madtom
(Siluriformes: Ictaluridae) from coastal streams of Tennessee and Mississippi. Ichthyological
Exploration of Freshwaters, 15(4):351-368.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 752

 Scientific Name:
Noturus lachneri
Common Name:
Ouachita Madtom
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Ouachita madtom has a very small, discontinuous range in the upper Saline River system and a
small unnamed tributary of the Ouachita River below Remmel Dam, in central Arkansas (Robison
and Harp 1985, Robison and Buchanan 1988).
Habitat:
The madtom occurs in clear, cool, moderate- to high-gradient creeks and small rivers with gravelrubble-sand substrates, and alternating pools and riffles. This fish is usually found in gravel/cobble
or debris in shallow pools, but also occurs in very shallow riffles under large rocks (Robison and
Allen 1995). Spawning likely occurs in smaller tributaries, as juveniles have been detected over
shale bedrock in small tributaries (Robison and Harp 1985).
Populations:
Robison and Harp (1985) mapped 17 collection sites for this madtom which probably represent
not more than 15 distinct occurrences. Total adult population size is unknown and is difficult to
estimate due to difficulty of detection. This species is not abundant at any locality (Robison and
Harp 1985).
Population Trends:
Trends are not well documented for the Ouachita madtom, but this species may be declining
(NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Ouachita madtom has a very restricted range where it faces multiple threats. It is categorized
as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008) due to habitat loss and
degradation and narrow range. It is ranked as imperiled by NatureServe (2008). The Arkansas
Department of Planning (1974) described the madtom as endangered, stating, "N. lachneri is not
abundant at any locality. Because of its small numbers, the constant threat of damming or
channelization activities in the area, and the nearby construction of a massive new planned
community in the Saline River watershed (Hot Springs Village), this species is endangered."
Habitat destruction:
The Ouachita madtom is threatened by degradation and loss of habitat from logging, commercial
gravel operations, housing developments, and bridge and road building (NatureServe 2008). The
construction and repair of bridges has decimated local populations (NatureServe 2008). Habitat
has been degraded by stream channelization, gravel mining, and clearcut logging (Robison and
Buchanan 1988). Potential impoundments to supply water for Benton and Little Rock are also a
threat (Robison and Buchanan 1988). The Arkansas Dept. of Planning (1974) reported damming,
channelization, and residential development as threats to the madtom. The Arkansas Game and
Fish Commission (2005) reports that this species is threatened by habitat destruction from dams,
diversions, resource extraction, and forestry. Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss as a threat to this
species.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 753

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this species. It is a designated Species
of Concern in Arkansas, but this does not provide any regulatory protection.
Other factors:
The madtom is threatened by water pollution from sedimentation resulting from forestry, gravel
mining, and urbanization (Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 2005).
References:
Arkansas Department of Planning. 1974. Arkansas Natural Area Plan. The University of Arkansas
Press.
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Aquatic Fish
Report Species Account. Accessed March 16, 2010 at:
http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/09b_fish.pdf
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Robison, H. W., and G. L. Harp. 1985. Distribution, habitat and food of the Ouachita madtom,
NOTURUS LACHNERI, a Ouachita River drainage endemic. Copeia 1985:216-20.
Robison, H. W., and T. M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas
Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 536 pp.
Robison, H.W. and R.T. Allen. 1995. Only in Arkansas: A Study of the Endemic Plants and
Animals of the State. University of Arkansas Press: Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 754

 Scientific Name:
Noturus munitus
Common Name:
Frecklebelly Madtom
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Vulnerable-Endangered

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The frecklebelly madtom now occurs as four isolated populations found in the upper Tombigbee
River in Alabama and Mississippi, upper Coosa River in Georgia and Tennessee, upper Alabama
and Cahaba in Alabama, and Pearl River in Mississippi and Louisiana (Boschung and Mayden
2004). It was historically known from the Pearl, Bogue chitto, and Strong Rivers in Mississippi
and Louisiana, the Tombigbee River and several of its major tributaries, upstream of the junction
with the Warrior River, the Cahaba River downstream of the Fall line at Centreville, and from the
main channel of the Alabama River, and in the upper Coosa River system in the Conasauga River
and the Etowah River upstream of Allatoona Reservoir in Georgia (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat:
The frecklebelly madtom occurs in free-flowing riffles and rapids of medium to large rivers often
in areas where there is an abundance of river-weed (Boschung and Mayden 2004). It does not
occur in areas of chronic siltation and sedimentation or in impounded rivers (Boschung and
Mayden 2004, NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Based on a comprehensive review of all population surveys to date, museum records, and new
field work, Bennet et al. (2008) conclude:
"Nofurus munitus was once fairly abundant in appropriate habitat throughout its range, with nighttime collections on large-river gravel shoals before the late 1960s regularly producing large
collections of specimens in the hundreds (Supplementary Table 1, available only online at
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1656/S593.s!; Pilleret al. 2004). One of the most extensive analyses of
historic population trends was conducted by Piller et al. (2004) using museum collection data
from the Pearl River from 1950 to 1988. They found a precipitous decline in the N. munitus
population in the Pearl River after 1964, coinciding with many human-induced river
modifications, despite the fact that sampling effort (number of samples per year) was higher after
1964. While this study focused only on the Pearl River, the same decline in abundance of N.
munitus associated with river modification has occurred across its range, as the surveys discussed
above document. Examination of available museum records reveals a similar pattern in the
Alabama and Tombigbee rivers (Table I), with few collections after 1970 producing specimens, in
contrast to the Cahaba River collections, in which A, munitus seems to have remained fairly
common. While these museum datasets undoubtedly omit some records, a general trend similar
to the findings of Piller et al. (2004) is apparent."
A complete discussion of the available information on the status of populations of the madtom in
all of the four major systems in which it occurs can be found in Bennett et al. (2008). On balance,
these data show the species to be exceedingly rare in places where it was once abundant. For
example, Bennett et al. (2008) observe that the species was not found in the mainstem of the
Pearl River and only eight specimens were found in tributaries in 1999 (Piller et al. 2004), was

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 755

 found only at 47 of 113 sites in the Mobile Basin in 1996 and 1997, half of which were in the
Cahaba River (Shepard et al. 1997), and is extirpated from the Alabama River (Shepard et al.
1997). These data lead the authors to conclude, "Our review indicates that N. munitus is currently
greatly reduced from its former range, and is in decline in most of the drainages it still inhabits.
We recommend federal protection for the species under the Endangered Species Act."
The following detailed summary was provided by the Southeastern Fishes Council at a meeting of
the Gulf Slope Group with CBD:
"There are records of the frecklebelly madtom from four major tributaries of the upper
Tombigbee River in Alabama and Mississippi: Sipsey River, Luxapallila Creek, Buttahatchie
River, and Bull Mountain Creek. The lower section of Sipsey River is characterized by highquality gravel shoals, and the population there is apparently stable. Although the lower reach of
Luxapallila Creek has produced several large series of N. munitus, the portion of the stream
downstream of Columbus, MS was channelized for flood control in 1995, eliminating the stable
gravel shoal habitat needed by the species. The area upstream of the Alabama state line is
channelized and has not produced the species. N. munitus is now probably limited to a short
unchannelized stretch of Luxapallila Creek near Steens, MS. The strongest remaining population
of frecklebelly madtoms in the upper Tombigbee River system in the Buttahatchee River where
the species has been collected from the first shoal upstream of the embayment Columbus Lock
and Dam upstream to Hamilton, AL in most stable gravel shoals. In-stream gravel mining in the
lower section of the river has disrupted some shoals eliminating frecklebelly madtoms. Bull
mountain Creek produced N. munitus in 1980-81 at several stations, however, repeated sampling
recently at numerous localities throughout the creek has failed to produce additional specimens, and it
may now be extirpated. The population may have been adversely effected when the lower
section of the creek was cut off by construction of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. In the
Cahaba River, frecklebelly madtoms have recently been documented from four miles downstream
of the Highway 80 bridge in Dallas County upstream to near the Fall Line at Centreville in Bibb
County. Abundance in the Cahaba River is closely related to the condition and stability of the
gravel shoals. Shoals which are embedded with sand and silt are typically not inhabited by the
species. Frecklebelly madtoms were collected at 7 stations in the main channel of the Alabama
River in Wilcox and Monroe counties in the 1960's before the completion of Jones Bluff, Millers
Ferry, and Claiborne Locks and Dams. The species has now apparently been eliminated there due
to sedimentation, gravel removal, and altered flow regimes."
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) classifies the frecklebelly madtom as "severely to rapidly declining" at a rate
of 30 to more than 70 percent, stating: "This species has declined precipitously in recent years,
particularly in Mobile Bay drainage where it is approaching extirpation (Lee et al. 1980). Habitat
modifications have apparently eliminated or greatly reduced abundance throughout much of former
range (Shephard et al. 1996). Declining in Louisiana, possibly rapidly (S. Shively, pers. comm., 1997).
Declining rapidly; Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway construction in the early 1980s probably destroyed
much of the habitat in the Tombigbee River; majority of extant populations may occur in Mississippi (P.
Shute, pers. comm., 1997). Apparently extirpated from Bull Mountain Creek in the Tombigbee River
System and the Alabama River (Shephard et al. 1996)."
Although Noturus munitus was once widespread and abundant on the expansive gravel shoals that

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 756

 characterized the main channel of the upper Tombigbee River, the species has now been
eliminated there by channelization and impoundment to create the Tennessee-Tombigbee
Waterway (SFC and CBD 2010).
Status:
This summary clearly demonstrates that the frecklebelly madtom has been lost from many This species
is spottily distributed in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee, has historic locations because
of habitat degradation, including in the recent past.significantly declined in the Mobile Bay drainage,
and is threatened by various alterations to its habitat. It is ranked by NatureServe (2008) as critically
imperiled in Georgia and Tennessee, and imperiled in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
Jelks et al. (2008) list the populations in the Tombigbee and Coosa as endangered and the populations in
the Cahaba and Pearl as vulnerable. It is listed as threatened by the state of Tennessee, endangered by
the states of Mississippi and Georgia, and as a species of greatest conservation need in Alabama.
Bennett et al. (2008) conclude that this species warrants listing under the federal Endangered Species
Act as threatened, stating: "While it remains widely distributed across the southeastern US, it has
declined precipitously from historic abundance since the late 1960s and is currently found in
abundance in only the Cahaba and Buttahatchee rivers. Further, its dependence on large-river
gravel shoal habitat makes it vulnerable to river modification that will likely continue into the
foreseeable future." At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and CBD there was general
support for listing this species as threatened (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
The frecklebelly madtom occurs in main channel shoal habitats, and is very intolerant of
sedimentation (Shepard 2004, SFC and CBD 2010). Its habitat requirements make it very
vulnerable to practices which disturb substrate integrity such as in-stream gravel mining,
channelization, and sedimentation due to nonpoint source pollution (Ibid.) Jelks et al. (2008) list the
species as vulnerable or endangered, depending on which system, because of the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or reduction of habitat or range.
The freckleberry madtom is considered to be very threatened by several factors including
impoundment, channelization, gravel mining, altered flow regimes, agriculture, and logging
(Mettee et al. 1996, Shephard et al. 1996, Piller et al. 2004, Bennett et al. 2008, NatureServe
2008). Piller et al. (2004), for example, conclude: "the Pearl River experienced numerous human
caused disturbances since the 1950s, and it is difficult to attribute the decline of the frecklebelly
madtom to any one of these factors. Rather, it is likely that all of the disturbances contributed to
the widespread problem of geomorphic instability in the river, and this in turn is depressing
populations of gravel-dependent species such as the frecklebelly madtom." Likewise, Bennett et
al. (2008) list impacts to the species in most watersheds where it historically occurred. For
example, they specifically list construction of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway with 10 lock
and dam structures, which led to the "probable extirpation" of the species in the main channel,
contruction of three dams on the Alabama River, which led to the extinction of the species in this
river, construction of one dam on the Etowah River, which "likely affected" the frecklebelly
madtom, and poor land-use practices in the Conasauga, leading to the frecklebelly madtom being
"greatly reduced from their former extent and perhaps extirpated" (Bennett et al. 2008). With a
growing population in the region, new dams are continuing to be planned. A dam, for example, is
being planned on Shoal Creek, which is a tributary to the Etowah (see
http://www.dawsonnews.com/news/archive/2321/). There are also plans for a large coal mine on the
Buttahatchee River (SFC and CBD 2010).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 757

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) concludes that none to few occurrences of this fish are appropriately
protected. They note, however, that the "most of the headwaters of the Conasauga River are
protected by high quality watershed management in the Cherokee National Forest" (NatureServe
2008). The frecklebelly madtom is state-listed inTennessee, Georgia and Mississippi, and is a
species of greatest conservation need in Alabama, but none of these designations provide
regulatory protection to the madtom or its habitat.
Other factors:
Jelks et al. (2008) cite narrow restricted range as a threat to this species. The madtom is
threatened by water pollution, primarily from siltation (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Bennett, M.G., B.R. Kuhajda, J.H. Howell. 2008. Status of the frecklebelly madtom, Notorus
munitus, (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae): a review of data from field surveys, museum records and
the literature. Southeastern Naturalist, V. 7(3):459-474.
Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin.
Oxmoor House, Birmingham, Alabama. 820 pp.
Mississippi Natural Heritage Program. 2002. Endangered Species of Mississippi. Museum of
Natural Science, Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, Jackson, MS. 2 pp.
Piller, K.R., H.L. Bart, and J.A. Tipton. 2004. Decline of the Freclebelly Madtom in the Pearl
River Based on contemporary and historical surveys. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 133: 1004-1013.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.
Shepard T. 2004. Frecklebelly madtom. In Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee and P.E.
O'Neil (eds.). Alabama Wildlife Volume Two: Imperiled Aquatic Mussels and Fihses. Unversity
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Shepherd, T. E., S. W. McGregor, P. E. O'Neil, and M. F. Mettee. 1996. Status survey of the
frecklebelly madtom (NOTURUS MUNITUS) in the Mobile River Basin: summary of results for
1995-96 the Upper Tombigbee, Alabama, and Cahaba River Systems. Prepared in cooperation
with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 34 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 758

 Scientific Name:
Noturus taylori
Common Name:
Caddo Madtom
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
This endemic fish has a small range in the upper Ouachita, Caddo, and Little Missouri rivers of the
Ouachita River drainage in southwestern Arkansas (Lee et al. 1980, Robison and Buchanan 1988,
Page and Burr 1991). The majority of occurrences are in the Ouachita and Caddo rivers. This fish
was known from a single locality in the Little Missouri River, but during recent surveys was not
detected there (Turner and Robison 2006).
Habitat:
This headwater stream specialist uses shallow, gravel-bottomed pools or shoals near the shoreline
of clear, small to medium-sized upland rivers. It is associated with well-compacted gravel areas
below riffles, and also occurs under rocks, beneath large gravel, or among rubble (Robison and
Harris 1978, Lee et al. 1980, Robison and Buchanan 1988, Page and Burr 1991, Robison and
Allen 1995, Turner and Robison 2006).
Populations:
In 1988, 15 coarse-scale collection sites were mapped for this species (Robison and Buchanan
1988). Turner and Robison (2006) surveyed the majority of the known range of this fish but
detected it at only two localities each in the Ouachita and Caddo drainage, and did not detect it in
the Little Missouri despite extensive sampling effort. Total adult population size is unknown.
Page and Burr (1991) stated that this species is locally common, but Robison and Buchanan
(1988) categorized it as rare. Turner and Robison (2006) surveyed most of the known range of the
Caddo madtom yet obtained relatively small numbers of individuals at each locality (8.75
individuals, on average).
Population Trends:
The Caddo madtom has declined by up to 30 percent (Robison and Buchanan 1988, Turner and
Robison 2006, NatureServe 2008). The population in the Little Missouri may no longer be extant
(Turner and Robison 2006).
Status:
The Caddo madtom is restricted to a few rivers in Arkansas where it is rare and apparently
declining. Because of their specific habitat requirements and limited occurrence, Caddo madtoms
are considered critically imperiled both statewide and globally (Throneberry 2010, NatureServe
2008). Robison (1974) describes this species as rare and endangered. Warren et al. (2000)
categorize this species as threatened. The American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008)
categorize this species as threatened due to habitat loss and degradation and narrow range.
Habitat destruction:
The Caddo madtom is particularly vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation due to its limited
range. Robison and Buchanan (1988) stated that "this rare species should be considered threatened
due to loss of habitat." This fish appears to be vulnerable to local extirpation by small scale
disturbances (Turner and Robison 2006). Because this fish is a headwater specialist, it is

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 759

 particularly vulnerable to local extirpation because natural recolonization from adjacent rivers is
unlikely (Turner and Robison 2006). Williams et al. (1999) report that aquatic habitats in this
region are negatively impacted by local human activities such as development, logging, and gravel
mining. The Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (2005) reports that this species is threatened by dams,
resource extraction, forestry, road construction, sedimentation, and hydrological alteration.
Throneberry (2010) reports that this species is threatened by hydrologic alteration and sedimentation.
Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss as a threat to this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this species. NatureServe (2008)
reports that no occurrences are appropriately protected and managed.
Other factors:
The Caddo madtom is threatened by pollution, particularly by sedimentation from a variety of
activities (Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan 2005, Throneberry 2010).
References:
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. 2005. Aquatic Fish Report: Notorus taylori species account.
Accessed March 8, 2010 at: http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/09b_fish.pdf
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Robison, H. W., and J. L. Harris. 1978. Notes on the habitat and zoogeography of Noturus taylori
(Pisces: Ictaluridae). Copeia 1978:548-550.
Robison, H. W., and T. M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press,
Fayetteville, Arkansas. 536 pp.
Robison, H.W. 1974. Threatened Fishes of Arkansas. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings
XXVIII 1974: 59-64.
Robison, H.W. and R.T. Allen. 1995. Only in Arkansas: A Study of the Endemic Plants and
Animals of the State. University of Arkansas Press: Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Throneberry, J. 2010. Caddo Maytom Noturus taylori. Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission
Natural News. February 2010. Accessed March 8, 2010 at:
http://www.naturalheritage.com/enews/archive.aspx?mid=11693
Turner, T. F., and H. W. Robison. 2006. Genetic diversity of the Caddo madtom, Noturus taylori, and
with comments on factors that promote genetic divergence in fishes endemic to the Ouachita
Highlands. Southwestern Naturalist 51:338-345.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 760

 Williams, L. R., A. A. Echelle, C. S. Toepfer, M. G. Williams, and W. L. Fisher. 1999.
Simulation modeling of population viability for the leopard darter (Percidae: Percina
pantherina). Southwestern Naturalist 44:470–477.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 761

 Scientific Name:
Nuphar lutea ssp. sagittifolia
Common Name:
Cape Fear Spatterdock
G Rank:
T2
Range:
The Cape Fear spatterdock, also known as the yellow pond lily, is an aquatic plant endemic to the
Coastal Plains of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Natural heritage records show this
species is present in Charles City, James City, and New Kent Counties in Virginia - records for
North and South Carolina are not available (NatureServe 2008). North Carolina had 24 reported
occurrences at last inventory (1987), and the species is reportedly rare in both South Carolina
(present in one county), and Virginia (present in the Chickahominy River estuary) (NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
This lily is primarily found in coastal-plain blackwater streams or tidal estuaries, but also
occasionally in lakes or brownwater streams. It is often found co-occurring with cypress
(Taxodium) (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This plant may hybridize with N. lutea advena in the Chickahominy River estuary (Fernald 1950).
Populations:
Global population size is not know for this species, but approximately 26 occurrences have been
reported in the last two decades (NatureServe 2008). This species is locally abundant at some
sites, but total range is small, and occurrences are sparse throughout its range.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Cape Fear spatterdock is declining across its range, largely as
a result of habitat loss.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Virginia, imperiled in North
Carolina, and its status is under review in North Carolina. This species has a narrow range
throughout which it is sparsely distributed, and populations are being extirpated by residential
development along river shores.
Habitat destruction:
Degradation in water quality as a result of pollution or siltation from industry, development, and
other anthropogenic activities threaten this species, as does recreational boating, and on-shore
development (NatureServe 2008). Several occurrences in Virginia have already been lost to
development along river shorelines.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Cape Fear spatterdock or its habitat.
Other factors:
The spatterdock is threatened by siltation from a variety of sources (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 762

 References:
Fernald, M.L. 1950. Gray's manual of botany. 8th edition. Corrected printing (1970). D. Van
Nostrand Company, New York. 1632 pp.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1997. Flora of North America north of Mexico.
Vol. 3. Magnoliophyta: Magnoliidae and Hamamelidae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York. xxiii +
590 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
November 30, 2009 ).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 763

 Scientific Name:
Nuphar lutea ssp. ulvacea
Common Name:
West Florida Cow-lily
G Rank:
T2
Range:
This water lily is reported from Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Washington, Jackson, and
Calhoun Counties, Florida, Baldwin County, Alabama, and possibly from sites in southern
Mississippi, though these are not confirmed (Kral 1983, NatureServe 2008, Godfrey and Wooten
1981).
Habitat:
The cow-lily is found in a variety of flow regimes, in shallow, clear, or tannic-acid tinted
(blackwater) waters, and is often rooted in sandy substrate (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This plant exhibits both floating and submerged leaves.
Populations:
This species is poorly known, it has not been extensively sampled and is rarely collected in
surveys. Neither the number of occurrences nor total population size are known (NatureServe
2008).
Population Trends:
Trend has not been reported for this rare species.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the West Florida cowlily as critically imperiled in Alabama and
imperiled in Florida.
Habitat destruction:
The West Florida cow-lily is extremely sensitive to changes in hydrology and water quality and is
threatened by logging and wetland conversion to grazing, agriculture, and development
(NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species occurs on Eglin Air Force Base where it is protected from some threats. No existing
regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species or its habitat.
References:
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United
States: Dicotyledons. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.
Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada,
and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 764

 Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 13, 2010)

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 765

 Scientific Name:
Nyssa ursina
Common Name:
Bear Tupelo
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Also known as dwarf blackgum, the bear tupelo is a small flowering shrub endemic to a small
portion of the Apalachicola River Delta in Florida (Small 1933, Clewell 1985). Natural heritage
records indicate this species' presence in Bay, Franklin, Gulf, and Liberty Counties (NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
This species is found in fire-prone savannas, open herb bogs, and along the wet edges of pineland
swamps (Nelson 1996).
Ecology:
This species is small in stature (seldom greater than 1.5 m tall), individuals are dioecious, and
fruits are approximately 10-15 mm long (Clewell 1985, Nelson 1996).
Populations:
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory reports 28 occurrences of this species (FNAI 2001 as cited
in NatureServe 2008). Global population size is not known, but where found this species is
common to abundant (FNAI 2001).
Population Trends:
Though the precise level of decline is not reported, it is believed that habitat loss is driving the
decline of this species across its already small range (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the bear tupelo as imperiled in Florida. This species has an extremely
restricted range; further reductions in the extent or quality of habitat may be expected to cause
local extirpations.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss is the primary threat to this species: logging in pine flatwoods outrightly destroys
habitat, and siltation from upstream logging, agriculture, or development alters wetland habitat,
making it unsuitable for species like the bear tupelo.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the bear tupelo from habitat destruction or
other threats. NatureServe (2008) reports that few occurrences are appropriately protected or
managed: the species has been observed on Tyndall Air Force Base, in the Apalachicola National
Forest, Tates Hell State Forest, and other public lands, but protections on these lands are minimal.
Other factors:
Siltation from a variety of activities threatens this plant (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 766

 References:
Clewell, A.F. 1985. Guide to vascular plants of the Florida panhandle. Florida State Univ. Press,
Tallahassee, Florida. 605 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed
August 4, 2009.
Nelson, G. 1996. The shrubs and woody vines of Florida: a reference and field guide. Edwards
Brothers Publishing: Ann Arbor, MI.
Small, J.K. 1933. Manual of the southeastern flora. Two volumes. Hafner Publishing Company,
New York.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 767

 Scientific Name:
Obovaria subrotunda
Common Name:
Round Hickorynut
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G4
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
This freshwater mussel species is present in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Ontario.
Only 100 occurrences have been reported since 1970, the majority of which were from Indiana
(NatureServe 2008). In Indiana, it is found in the Muscatatuck, Tippecanoe, and St. Joseph
drainages (Harmon 1989, Cummings and Berlocher 1990, Pryor 2005). In Ohio, it is found in
many high quality rivers, including Lake Erie (Watters 1992, 1995, Lyons et al. 2007), in
Tennessee, it occurs in the Obey, Stones, Harpeth, and Red Rivers, and the main stem of the
Cumberland River, thought it was once more widespread (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). In
Alabama, it is restricted to the Paint Rock River system and Bear Creek (Mirarchi et al. 2004,
Williams et al. 2008), and in Mississippi, it occurs in the Mississippi River South, Big Black, and
Yazoo drainages (Jones et al. 2005). The round hickorynut occurs occasionally in Tennessee’s
lower Cumberland drainage, including the Middle Green and South Fork Kentucky (Cochran and
Layzer 1993, Evans 2008). Though it was once considered extirpated in Pennsylvania, it is likely
still extant in the Shenango River (Bursey 1987). It is currently thought to be extirpated from
New York (Strayer and Jirka 1997). In West Virginia, it is found in the Upper Ohio/Kanawha and
Mud Rivers (Zeto et al. 1987, Schmidt and Zeto 1986). Michigan’s populations are confined to
the Pine and Belle River drainages (Badra and Goforth 2003). In Canada, specimens were most
recently found Ontario’s East Sydenham River and the St. Clair Delta in Lake St. Clair (MetcalfeSmith et al. 2003).
Habitat:
This species is found in large streams and medium-sized to large rivers with sand and gravel
substrate, typically in areas of moderate flow at depths of less than six feet (Cummings and Mayer
1992, Parmalee and Bogan 1988). It also occurs in Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair (COSEWIC
2003).
Ecology:
Females discharge glochidia in early to mid-summer; glochidial hosts are not known. Little other
data on this species’ life history is available (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Just over 100 occurrences of the round hickorynut have been reported since 1970, and total
population size is thought to number at least 100,000 (NatureServe 2008). Numerous historical
occurrences have been extirpated, and many remaining populations are small and isolated.
Population Trends:
Though this species was formerly wide-ranging and comprised of large, healthy populations, it has
disappeared from several historical locations, and remaining populations continue to decline,
with changes particularly evident in populations in Canada, where it has lost approximately 90
percent of its historical range, and in western Pennsylvania and New York (NatureServe 2008,
COSEWIC 2003). NatureServe (2008) reports that the round hickorynut has experienced a long-

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 768

 term decline of up to 50 percent, and that it has continued to decline by up to 30 percent in the
short-term.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the round hickorynut is critically imperiled in Arkansas, Indiana,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ontario, imperiled in Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, and
vulnerable in West Virginia. It is listed as endangered in Illinois, Michigan, and Canada. Its rank is
being changed from special concern (Williams et al. 1993) to threatened by the American
Fisheries Society (draft 2010, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Numerous historic populations of round hickorynut have been extirpated by habitat loss and
degradation, and threats to the species are ongoing. The round hickorynut is threatened by
impoundments, dredging and channelization, gravel and sand quarrying, urban and industrial
development, agriculture, forestry, oil and gas drilling, and coal mining (Carman 2001, Kentucky
Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2005, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources 2006,
NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the round hickorynut from the threats it
faces across its range. It is listed as endangered by several states, but these designations do not
protect the species habitat from destruction, which is the greatest threat to its survival.
Other factors:
Invasive aquatic species, such as the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, and Asian clam,
Corbicula fluminea, have wreaked havoc on native mussel populations in the Eastern and Central
United States. Roughly 64 percent of historical records for O. subrotunda are from waters now
infested with zebra mussels; some sources suggest this is the greatest threat to the round
hickorynut (e.g., COSEWIC 2003).
The round hickorynut is threatened by any factor which threatens the host fishes on which it
depends for reproduction.
This mussel is also threatened by altered sediment loads, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, urban,
municipal and industrial pollution, acid mine drainage, waste water discharge, and accidental
chemical spills (Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2005, Michigan Dept. of
Natural Resources 2006, NatureServe 2008).
Habitat fragmentation and small population size also limit gene flow and threaten this species
(Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2005, Michigan Dept. of Natural
Resources 2006, NatureServe 2008).
References:
Badra, P.J. and R.R. Goforth. 2003. Freshwater mussel surveys of Great Lakes tributary rivers in
Michigan. Report Number MNFI 2003-15 to the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality, Coastal Zone Management Unit, Lansing, Michigan. 40 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 769

 Carman, S.M. 2001. Special Animal Abstract for Obovaria subrotunda (Round Hickorynut).
Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Lansing, MI. 2 pp.
COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the round hickorynut Obovaria
subrotunda in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa,
Canada. 31 pp.
Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest.
Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5, Illinois. 194 pp.
Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater
mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pages 129-145 in: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer,
and T.J. Naimo (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the
future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.
Cummings, K.S. and J.M. Berlocher. 1990. The naiades or freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) of the Tippecanoe River, Indiana. Malacological Review, 23: 83Harmon, J.L. 1989. Freshwater bivalve mollusks (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Graham Creek, a small
southeastern Indiana stream. Malacology Data Net, 2(5/6): 113-121.
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2005. Kentucky's Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed March 31, 2010 at:
http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/Volume%20II/Bivalvia/Bivalvia.htm#543
Lyons, M.S., R.A. Krebs, J.P. Holt, L.J. Rundo, and W. Zawiski. 2007. Assessing causes of
change in the freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Black River, Ohio. American
Midland Naturalist, 158: 1-15.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L. and B. Cudmore-Vokey. 2004. National general status assessment of
freshwater mussels (Unionacea). National Water Research Institute / NWRI Contribution No.
04-027. Environment Canada, March 2004. Paginated separately
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., J. Di Maio, S.K. Staton, and S.R. De Solla. 2003. Status of the freshwater
mussel communities of the Sydenham River, Ontario, Canada. American Midland Naturalist,
150: 37-50.
Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. 2006. Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan. Threats to
Aquatic Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Accessed April 1, 2010 at:
http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/publications/pdfs/HuntingWildlifeHabitat/WCS/Threats/SGCN_By_A
quatic_Threat.pdf
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
October 20, 2009).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 770

 Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328
Pryor, W.W. 2005. Distribution of the native freshwater mussels in the rivers of Allen County,
Indiana. Report to the St. Joseph River Watershed Initiative, Fort Wayne, Indiana. 71 pp.
Schmidt, J.E. and M.A. Zeto. 1986. Naiad distribution in the Mud River drainage, southwestern
West Virginia. Malacology Data Net, 1(4): 69-78.
Strayer, D.L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The pearly mussels of New York state. New York State
Museum Memoir 26. The University of the State of New York. 113 pp. + figures.
Watters, G.T. 1992. Distribution of the Unionidae in south central Ohio. Malacology Data Net,
3(1-4): 56-90.
Watters, G.T. 1992. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography, 19:
481-490.
Watters, G.T. 1995. A field guide to the freshwater mussels of Ohio. revised 3rd edition. Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus, Ohio. 122 pp.
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama & the Mobile
Basin in Georgia, Mississippi & Tennessee. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
908 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 771

 Scientific Name:
Obovaria unicolor
Common Name:
Alabama Hickorynut
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The Alabama Hickorynut occurs in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and possibly Oklahoma
(NatureServe 2008). This mussel is found in eastern Gulf Coast drainages from the Mobile Basin
west to the Lake Pontchartrain drainage of Louisiana and Mississippi (Williams et al. 2008). This
mussel is found primarily below the Fall Line in the Alabama, Coosa, Cahaba, Tombigbee, and
Black Warrior River drainages (Williams et al. 2008). There is some confusion regarding the
range of this species, as it is easily confused with Obovaria jacksoniana, and both species are
reported from the Pascagoula, Pearl, and Amite River systems in Mississippi and Louisiana
(Mirarchi et al. 2004). Mirarchi et al. (2004) question occurrences in the Coosa and in Oklahoma.
Habitat:
This mussel occurs in medium to large streams below the Fall Line, generally in areas with sandy
substrate and low flow, but individuals have been detected in many habitat types in appropriate
streams including gravel-bottomed swift shoals, deep gravel and sand-bottomed runs, the silty
margins of streams, pools, backwater sloughs, and high-water side channels (Mirarchi et al.
2004). USFS (2007) states that this mussel requires habitat stability, including substrate and water
quality.
Ecology:
The Alabama Hickorynut is a long-term brooder with females releasing glochidia from April to
June. Glochidial hosts include naked sand, southern sand, and red spotted darters, with marginal
hosts including Johnny, Gulf, blackbanded, and dusky darters (Haag and Warren 2003).
Populations:
It is estimated that there are from 21-80 populations of Alabama Hickorynut (NatureServe 2008).
Williams et al. (1992) report that the species was recently collected from the Black Warrior
River in Tuscaloosa and Greene/Hale counties, and in the upper Tombigbee River in Sumter and
Greene counties prior to impoundment. Vidrine (1993) reports this mussel from a few drainages
in eastern Louisiana including the Pearl, Tangipahoa, Ticfaw, and Amite rivers. Brown and Banks
(2001) report 1990s records for the Amite and Tangipahoa rivers, and historical occurrences in
the Pearl River. Johnson and Ahlstedt (2005) report this mussel from the Luxapallila drainage on
the Mississippi/Alabama border. Jones et al. (2005) report the Mississippi distribution as the
Pearl, Pascagoula, and Tombigbee River drainages. Kennedy and Haag (2005) report specimens
from the Sipsey River in Alabama.
This species is common only in the Sipsey River in Alabama (Mirarchi et al. 2004) and is
generally uncommon or rare throughout the remainder of its range (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Although this mussel has a fairly wide distribution, it is in decline. The Alabama Hickorynut is
declining in the short term (decline of 10-30 percent) and moderately declining (decline of 25 50 percent) in the long-term (NatureServe 2008). USFS (2007) states that this species is

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 772

 currently declining globally and is generally uncommon. Williams et al. (2008) report that the
distribution of this mussel has declined since the mid-1900s, and that in the Alabama and Mobile
Basin, it is only extant in a few tributaries of the upper Tombigbee.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Alabama Hickorynut as critically imperiled in Louisiana and
Oklahoma,, imperiled in Alabama, and vulnerable in Mississippi. This mussel is a Species of
Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama and Mississippi. Although this species still maintains a
fairly wide range, declines are evident rangewide. Over 100 occurrences probably still exist but
some have questionable viability (NatureServe 2008). This species is ranked as near threatened by
the IUCN. In 1993, the American Fisheries Society classified this mussel as Special Concern
(Williams et al.), but its status is being changed to Endangered (draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
This mussel is threatened by impoundment, siltation, channelization of large stream habitat, and
declining water quality (NatureServe 2008). Stream impoundments, channelization, and water
quality degradation have extirpated this species from most of its historical range. Habitat loss and
degradation is the greatest threat to the survival of mussels in the southeastern United States
(Neves et al. 1997). The Alabama Hickorynut is sensitive to water quality degradation and
sedimentation from ground-disturbing activities within a watershed (USFS 2007). This species
occurs in the Bankhead National Forest and is thus threatened by silvicultural and recreational
activities. USFS (2007) cites heavy recreational use of habitat as a threat to this species. The
Alabama Hickorynut is also threatened by habitat inundation, alterations in the timing and duration
of flow, blocked dispersal, and interrupted connectivity due to the operation of the Martin
Hydroelectric Project (Takats 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect the Alabama Hickorynut, and
no occurrences are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). NatureServe (2008)
states: "No protected sites are known. The species is protected from harvest in most areas but
generally there is no protection from upstream siltation or pollution sources." This mussel is a
Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama and Mississippi, but these designations do not
confer regulatory protection. It has no state status in Oklahoma or Louisiana.
Other factors:
Any factor which degrades water quality is a threat to the Alabama Hickorynut. This species is also
threatened by population isolation, reduced abundance, and questionable viability of some
populations. The Hickorynut is also threatened by any factor which threatens host fish populations.
References:
Branson, B.A. 1984. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma- Part 3: Lampsilini.
Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 64: 20-36.
Brown, K.M. and P.D. Banks. 2001. The conservation of unionid mussels in Louisiana rivers:
diversity, assemblage composition and substrate use. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems, 11(3): 189-198.
Haag, W.R. and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2003. Host fishes and infection strategies of freshwater
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 773

 mussels in large Mobile Basin streams, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society, 22(1): 78-91.
Kennedy, T.B. and W.R. Haag. 2005. Using morphometrics to identify glochidia from a diverse
freshwater mussel community. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24(4):
880-889.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Neves, R. J., A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams, S. A. Ahlstedt, and P. W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of
aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: A downward spiral of diversity. In Aquatic
Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. G. W. Benz, and D. E. Collins (eds.). Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design & Communications, Decatur,
GA, p. 43-86.
Takats, J.A. 2009. Comments on Alabama Power Company’s Martin Hydroelectric Project P349-150 November 17, 2008 Draft Study Plans. World Wildlife Fund, Inc. February 17, 2009.
Available online at:
www.alabamapower.com/hydro/pdfs_martin/February%2017,%202009%20WWF%20Study%2
0Plan%20Comments.pdf. Last accessed June 10, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2007. Biological Evaluation of Proposed, Threatened, Endangered and
Sensitive Species Wildlife Habitat Improvement and Fuels Reduction Project Proposed Action
within Winston County, Alabama. William B. Bankhead Ranger District. 50 pp. Available online:
www.fs.fed.us/r8/alabama/planning/documents/BE_Midstory_KV.pdf
Last accessed April 23, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2007. Biological Evaluation of Proposed, Threatened, Endangered and
Sensitive Species Wildlife Habitat Improvement and Fuels Reduction Project Proposed Action
within Winston County, Alabama. William B. Bankhead Ranger District. 50 pp. Available online:
www.fs.fed.us/r8/alabama/planning/documents/BE_Midstory_KV.pdf
Last accessed April 23, 2009.
Vidrine, M.F. 1993. The Historical Distributions of Freshwater Mussels in Louisiana. Gail Q.
Vidrine Collectibles: Eunice, Louisiana. xii + 225 pp. + 20 plates.
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the Mobile
Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 908 pp.
Williams, J.D., S.L.H. Fuller, and R. Grace. 1992. Effects of impoundment on freshwater
mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the main channel of the Black Warrior and
Tombigbee Rivers in western Alabama. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History, 13:
1-10.
Williams, James D, Melvin Warren Jr., Kevin Cummings, John Harris and Richard Neves. 1993.
Conservation Status of Freshwater Mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries, Vol. 18,
No. 9: 6-22 + errata

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 774

 Scientific Name:
Oecetis parva
Common Name:
Little Oecetis Longhorn Caddisfly
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
NE - Not evaluated

Range:
Historically this rare caddisfly had been collected only from Alabama where it is known from one
male that was collected in Wright's Creek, and from three sites in Florida-- near Gainesville in
Alachua County, near Kissimmee in Osceola County, and from Lucas Lake in Washington County
(Floyd 1995). Prior to 1991, there were no records of this species since 1907. It is possibly
extirpated from Alabama. Rasmussen et al. (2008) report that recent light-trapping surveys have
recovered O. parva at a number of lakes and ponds in Florida, as well as the Wekiva River in
Seminole County. It is now known from 8 new sites including the Apalachicola, Choctawhatchee,
Kissimmee, Oklawaha, St. Johns (upper) and St. Marks Rivers in Alachua, Jackson, Lake, Leon,
Marion, Osceola, Putnam, Seminole, and Washington Cos.
Habitat:
This species is restricted to natural lakes, ponds, and spring runs (NatureServe 2010).
Populations:
Rasmussen et al. (2008) report 8 new ocurrences of O. parva, which brings known occurrences to
approximately 12. Data on population size are not available. In healthy habitats, this species can be
abundant.
Population Trends:
Rasmussen et al. (2008) report this species as stable. It is likely extirpated from Alabama.
Status:
This caddisfly is critically imperiled in Florida and state historical in Alabama (NatureServe
2008). It was a Federal C-2 Candidate Species until that list was abolished.
Habitat destruction:
Rasmussen et al. (2008) believe O. parva is an excellent bioindicator of lake health in Florida, as
it is abundant in the healthiest lakes. This indicates that this species is threatened by any factor
which negatively affects water quality.
The Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (2005a, b) reports that this species’ freshwater
marsh and wet prairie habitat is highly threatened by altered hydrologic regime, altered water
quality, and altered species dominance, and that this species’ seepage habitat is highly threatened
by altered hydrologic regime. Marsh, seepage, and lake habitats are all threatened by agriculture,
urban development, forestry, recreation, water withdrawals, and nutrient loading (FWCC 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Rasmussen et al. (2008) indicate that populations of O. parva are especially abundant in some of
the lakes and ponds within the Ocala National Forest, but this provides no regulatory habitat
protection. No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species. Rasmussen et al (2008) state
that "[p]rotection of Florida’s natural lakes is essential to ensuring the long-term health of this species."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 775

 References:
Clemson University Department of Entomology (J.C. Morse, ed.). 2002. Last Updated 5
September 2006. Trichoptera World Checklist. Online. Available:
http://entweb.clemson.edu/database/trichopt/index.htm.
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Freshwater Marsh
and Wet Prairie. Accessed April 7, 2010 at:
http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Freshwater_Marsh.pdf
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Seepage. Accessed
April 7, 2010 at: http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Seepage.pdf
Floyd, M.A. 1995. Larvae of the caddisfly genus Oecetis (Trichoptera: Leptoceridae) in North
America. Bulletin of the Ohio Biological Survey, New Series, 10(3): 1-85.
Franz, R. (ed.) 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida: Volume Six: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida: Gainesville, Florida. 131 pp.
Rasumussen, A.K., et al. 2008. Status Of Caddisflies (Insecta:Trichoptera) In Greatest
Conservation Need In Florida. Available online at
http://www.famu.org/trichoptera/pubs/rasmussena2008p1.pdf. Last accessed March 15, 2010.
Ross, H.H. 1944. The caddisflies or Trichoptera, of Illinois. Bulletin of the Illinois Natural
History Survey 23(1): __
Schweitzer, D.F. 1989. A review of Category 2 Insecta in USFWS regions 3, 4, 5. Prepared for
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wiggins, G.B. 1977. Larvae of the North American caddisfly genera (Trichoptera). Univ.
Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 401 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 776

 Scientific Name:
Oncidium undulatum
Common Name:
Cape Sable Orchid
G Rank:
G4
Range:
The Cape Sable orchid is rare and sparsely distributed across southern Florida, and though its
range outside the U.S. has not been formally estimated, it is reportedly found in parts of the
Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America (Luer 1972, NatureServe 2008). Natural heritage
records show this species to be present in Florida's Collier County, and other accounts also report
infrequent occurrences in remote sloughs within Big Cypress National Park (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This orchid is found in buttonwood (Platanus spp.) stands and also reported occasionally from
remote cypress sloughs in Big Cypress National Park (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This orchid is epiphytic and somewhat frost-tolerant (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Total population size is not known for the Cape Sable Orchid, nor is a precise number of
occurrences available, though the species is reportedly locally abundant in small buttonwood
(Platanus spp.) strand communities (Wunderlin 1998, NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this species.
Status:
The orchid has a highly rare and localized distribution in south Florida where it is vulnerable to
overcollection by orchid enthusiasts. NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is critically
imperiled (N1) in Florida.
Overutilization:
Overcollection is the primary threat to this rare orchid. It is highly threatened by orchid collectors
in south Florida as specimens are of great economic value (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Cape Sable orchid from overcollection,
and NatureServe (2008) reports that few populations are appropriately protected, though some
occur in Everglades or Big Cypress National Parks. Collectors are a consistent threat, and location
in remote, inaccessible areas is the only form of protection currently afforded to this species.
References:
Ackerman, J.D. 2000. Note on the Caribbean orchid flora. II. Lindleyana 15(2): 89-95.
Craighead, Frank C. 1963. Orchids and Air Plants of the Everglades Natl. Pk. Everglades Nat.
Hist. Assoc. and U. of Miami Press. 125 pp.
Luer, C. A. 1972. The native orchids of Florida. New York Botanical Garden, New York. 293 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 777

 Scientific Name:
Ophiogomphus australis
Common Name:
Southern Snaketail
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This dragonfly is known from eastern Louisiana and western Mississippi (Mauffray, 1997; Carle,
1992). Specimens from Eglin AFB, Okaloosa County, Florida, were previously misidentified as
O. incurvatus, but are in fact O. australis (Jerrell Daigle, pers. comm. to Dave Almquist, 2008).
NatureServe (2008) estimates the total range to be 100-250 square km (less than about 40 to 100
square miles). Ophiogomphus australis could be a subspecies of O. incurvatus, and the Center thus
requests the Service to recognize this petition for either the species or the subspecies, should it
be validated.
Habitat:
The Southern snaketail is found near gravel-bottomed streams (NatureServe 2008). It requires
"good water quality and stable stream flow" (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
The Southern snaketail is known from three rivers and streams in eastern Louisiana and adjacent
Mississippi (Mauffray 1997) and also from Eglin Air Force Base. It is known from about 50
miles of stream, with probably thousands in each of the three streams (NatureServe 2008).
According to Frank Carle (cited in IUCN 2010) there is much negative survey data.
Population Trends:
According to NatureServe (2008), the Southern snaketail is undoubtedly declining in the short
term because of susceptibility of Ophiogomphus larvae to flood scouring and pollution.
NatureServe estimates a decline of 10-30 percent.
Status:
O. australis has a limited range, with susceptibility to both pollution and perturbation of stream
flow. (NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled globally, but it has not been
ranked in FL, LA, or MS. IUCN (2010) now classifies O. australis as Endangered, stating that it
might be in danger of extinction due to habitat degradation.
Habitat destruction:
O.australis faces threats from gravel mining, siltation, pesticides, and clear cutting/deforestation
that impact water quality (NatureServe 2008). There are probably other threats related to flood
scour. The scope of threat could be higher than "moderate".
IUCN (2010) reports that "the pristine nature of the streams inhabited by this species were so
degraded that the species might be in danger of extinction. The habitat of this species is being
rapidly reduced by gravel removal and farm water run-off."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 778

 References:
Carle, F. L. 1992. OPHIOGOMPHUS (OPHIONURUS) AUSTRALIS spec. nov. from the Gulf
Coast of Louisiana, with larval and adult keys to American OPHIOGOMPHUS (Anisoptera:
Gomphidae). Odonatologica 21(2):141-152.
IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>.
Downloaded on 18 March 2010.
Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum
of Natural History University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper Number 56:86 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 779

 Scientific Name:
Ophiogomphus edmundo
Common Name:
Edmund's Snaketail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
Edmund's snaketail is currently known from four rivers and streams in eastern Tennessee,
adjacent areas of North Carolina, and Georgia. The one Pennsylvania record is based on a female
collected in Dauphin County and is thought to be the common O. Aspersus instead (NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
This species lives near clear moderately flowing mountain streams and rivers (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
According to NatureServe (2008) there are fewer than 5 populations with up to 10,000 total
individuals of this species. It is currently known from four rivers and streams in five counties.
Within its limited range and in appropriate habitat, this species is abundant, and there are probably
hundreds to thousands in each stream.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) indicates that this species is declining in the short term by up to 30 percent,
undoubtedly because of a general sensitivity of Ophigomphus larvae to flood scouring and
pollution.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled globally and in Georgia, North
Carolina, and Tennessee. It is a Tennessee Tier 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need, in North
Carolina it is Significantly Rare, and in Geogia it is state listed as Endangered. It was a Federal
C-2 Candidate Species until that list was abolished.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports threats to this species form deforestation and clear cutting, silation,
pesticides, and development.
Individuals of O. edmundo and its habitat were likely impacted by the Tsali Forest Health Project
on the Cheoah Ranger District of the Nantahala National Forest (USFS 2001). This is also true of
the Upper Creek Timber Sale on the Grandfather Ranger District of the Pisgah National Forest
(USFS 2005). O. edmundo may be in the area of and affected by the Armuchee Ridges Timber
Sale on the Consuaga Ranger District of the Chattahoochee National Forest (USFS 2007).
According to Vogt (1995), "[t]he most vulnerable life stage from a conservation perspective is
that of the nymph. Odonata nymphs are vulnerable to a wide variety of threats directly or
indirectly affecting their aquatic habitats. Examples include impoundments, channelization,
siltation, and water pollution. Because the nymphs live in highly aerated riffles, they may be
especially vulnerable to low dissolved oxygen levels".

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 780

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to NatureServe (2008), the two known North Carolina streams are in Pisgah National
Forest, and the species is a Regional forester's Sensitive Species. This designation provides only
discretionary protection for this species, however, and logging is a primary threat to this species.
This species is state-listed in Georgia, but this designation provides no habitat protection.
References:
Bick, G.H. 1983. Odonata at risk in conterminous United States and Canada. Odonatologica 12
(3):209-226.
Carle, F.L. 1981. A new species of OPHIOGOMPHUS from eastern North America, with a key
to the regional species (Anisoptera: Gomphidae). Odonatologica 10(4):271-278. December
1,1981.
Needham, James G., and Minter J. Westfall, Jr. 1954. A Manual of the Dragonflies of North
America (Anisoptera). University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 615 p.
Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum
of Natural History University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper Number 56:86 pp.
U.S. Forest Service. 2001. Decision Notice for the Tsali Forest Health Project. Available online
at http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/cheoah/tsali_dn.pdf. Last accessed March 8, 2010.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Environmental Assessment, Upper Creek Project. Available online at
http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/grandfather/upper_creek_ea.pdf. :Last accessed March 10,
2010.
U.S. Forest Service. 2007. Armuchee Ridges Thinning and Restoration Draft Environmental
Assessment, Chapter 3. Available online at
http://www.gafw.org/pdf_files/armuchee_draft_ea_chapter_3.pdf. Last accessed March 12,
2010.
Vogt, T. E. 1995. Rediscovery of Edmund's snaketail dragonfly OPHIOGOMPHUS EDMUNDO
Needham. Final Report. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Per Agreement No. 3, April
1995. Cooperative Agreement No. 14-48-0005-93-9002. 20 pp.
Vogt, T. E. 1995. Rediscovery Of Edmund's Snaketail Dragonfly Ophiogomphus Edmundo
Needham. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 781

 Scientific Name:
Ophiogomphus incurvatus
Common Name:
Appalachian Snaketail
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
This species occurs in the foothillls on either side of the Appalachian Mountains: it is found in
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia
(NatureServe 2008). It is known from only 20 streams within this range. In North Carolina, it
occurs in Alexander, Burke, Cabarrus, Caldwell, Caswell, Catawba, Cleveland, Davidson, Forsyth,
Gaston, Guilford, Iredell, Lincoln, McDowell, Mecklenburg, Richmond, Rockingham, Rutherford,
Stokes, Union, Wilkes and Yadkin Counties. In Pennsylvania, it occurs in York County. In West
Virginia, it occurs in Monroe County. In Virginia, it occurs in Russell, Giles, Floyd, Charlotte,
and Bedford Counties. In Tennessee, it occurs in Sevier County. In South Carolina, it occurs in
Aiken and Barnwell Counties. In Maryland, it occurs in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, and Howard
Counties. In Georgia, it occurs in Talbot and White Counties. In Alabama, it occurs in Blount,
Clay, Cleburne and Tuscaloosa Counties (OdonataCentral 2008 as cited in NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
O. incurvatus prefers clear stream habitat with sand or gravel riffles (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This dragonfly breeds in May and June (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Though this species has a wide range, it is restricted to only 20 streams in eight states. It is
widespread in distribution, but sparse in abundance. The Appalachian snaketail is globally rare and
characterized as "uncommon" by Dunkle (2000). No estimates of total population size are
available, and it is likely that some occurrences are not viable (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
This dragonfly has declined by up to 90 percent in the long-term, primarily due to land-use
changes in the Piedmont portion of its range. The Appalachian snaketail is also declining in the
short-term because the larval stage is unusually susceptible to flood scouring and pollution.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists the Appalachian Snaketail as critically imperiled in Virginia, imperiled
in Maryland, and vulnerable in North Carolina. It is not ranked in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky,
South Carolina, or West Virginia. It is classified as near threatened by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss and degradation is a primary threat to the Appalachian Snaketail, as larvae are highly
sensitive to changes in stream flow and water quality caused by impoundment, deforestation,
agriculture, and residential or commercial development. Threats are particularly severe in the
Piedmont portion of this species' range, where agriculture has greatly changed the landscape in
the past century (NatureServe 2008). Population viability of for this species requires connectivity
of healthy riparian and terrestrial habitats, due to the distinct habitat requirements of larvae and

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 782

 adults. Thus fragmentation or degradation of either aquatic or forested habitat may threaten this
species (Dunkle 2000).
Overutilization:
This species is sought by dragonfly collectors, as evidenced by this blog account of a collector
actively seeking this species:
"Weather is always a major factor in any dragonfly collecting trip and this one was no different as I
zigged and zagged trying to get behind storm fronts and into the sun. Giff gave me a location for
Appalachian Snaketail, Ophiogomphus incurvatus, in Georgia and Jerrell gave me one in North
Carolina. I got to Giff's on midday Thursday, but large cumulus clouds kept the temperature down
and I saw little but a few Ashy Clubtails, Gomphus lividus. The next day I was at Country Line
Creek in NC but found neither Skillet Clubtails, Gomphus ventricosus, along the power line cut or
Appalachian Snaketails along the creek" (Accessed March 31, 2010 at:
http://homepage.mac.com/edlam/dragonflyroad/5_07SE.html).
The extent to which collecting affects populations has not been assessed, but given the rarity of
this species, and in conjunction with other threats such as pollution and habitat loss, collecting
could increasingly threaten this dragonfly.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that few occurrences of this species are appropriately protected as
they occur on lands at least partially under the jurisdiction of wildlife management agencies: the
Pisgah National Forest, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,and a Clemson University research
area. However, these protections do not cover enough of this species' range to constitute
substantial regulatory protection. Other populations have no regulatory protection whatsoever.
Other factors:
Siltation and contamination by pesticides, fertilizers, and other anthropogenic polllutants are
primary threats to this species, as they are intolerant of pollution and insecticides (Corbet 1999,
NatureServe 2008). Chemical control of gypsy moth outbreaks threatens this dragonfly when
Dimilin is used (NatureServe 2008). The snaketail is vulnerable to flood scouring and is thus
threatened by severe storm events. The snaketail may also be threatened by limited gene flow as
populations are increasingly isolated.
References:
Beaton, G. 2007. Dragonflies and Damselflies of Georgia and the Southeast. University of
Georgia Press: Athens, Georgia. 355 pp. Updates available at:
http://www.giffbeaton.com/dragonflies.htm.
Carle, Frank Louis. 1982. Ophiogomphus incurvatus:A new name for Ophiogomphus carolinus
Hagen (Odonata:gomphidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 75(3):335-339.
May 1982.
Corbet P.S. 1999. Dragonflies: Behavior and Ecology of Odonata. Comstock Publishing
Associates, Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York.
Dunkle, S. 2000. Dragonflies through Binoculars. Oxford. Univ. Press, New York. 266 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 783

 NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed
August 4, 2009.
Needham, J.G., M.J. Westfall, Jr., and M.L. May. 2000. Dragonflies of North America. Revised
edition. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida. 939 pp.
Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum
of Natural History University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper Number 56:86 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 784

 Scientific Name:
Orconectes blacki
Common Name:
Calcasieu Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
All sites confirmed to have Orconectes blacki are found in Beauregard and Calcasieu Parishes,
Louisiana according to NatureServe (2008).
Habitat:
NatureServe (2008) indicates that this species is found in moderately flowing, small or mediumsized streams with detritus.
Populations:
The species is known from only six localities and according to Walls (1972: 455), intergrading
occurs with O. d. hathawayi "in Calcasieu River drainage of Allen, Beauregard, Calcasieu, and
Vernon Parishes, Louisiana." In his revision of the genus Orconectes, however, Fitzpatrick
(1987) recognized no geographic races of Orconectes (H.) difficilis, according Walls' subspecies
specific rank. NatureServe (2008) estimates total population size at 1000-2500 total individuals.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled. The IUCN ranks it as vulnerable. The
American Fisheries Society considers this species to be threatened due to habitat loss and limited
range.
Habitat destruction:
According to NatureServe (2008), Orconectes blacki is threatened by habitat loss and direct take
of the species from the rapidly developing oil industry in SW Louisiana and SE Texas. These
impacts could seriously endanger this species.
The Lousisana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (2005) reports that this species is threatened
by degradation or alteration of habitat and chemical pollution, and is especially sensitive because
of a limited distribution.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species occurs on the Kisatchie National Forest, where it is a USFS Sensitive Species, but
this designation does not provide regulatory protection for ths species or its habitat (USFS 2005).
The Nature Conservancy has adopted O. blacki as an Animal Conservation Target with a goal of 7
viable occurrences in its land portfolio (TNC 2003).
References:
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1987. The subgenera of the crawfish genus Orconectes (Decapoda:
Cambaridae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 100(1): 44-74.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 785

 Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2007. Fact Sheet on Calcasieu Painted
Crawfish. Available online at
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/pdfs/experience/naturalheritage/rareanimal/calcasieupaintedcrawfis
h.pdf. Last accessed April 20, 2009.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Shively, S. H., J. G. Walls. 2003. Crawfish of the Kisatchie National Forest. CD Available from
U.S. Forest Service.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
The Nature Conservancy. 2003. West Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregional Conservation Plan.
Available online at
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/texas/files/wgcpecoregionalplan.pdf.
Last accessed October 11, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Regional Forester Sensitive Species, Regions 8 And 9. Available
online at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480093cd9&dispositi
on=attachment&contentType=pdf. Last accessed June 30, 2009.
Walls, J.G. 1972. Three new crayfishes related to Orconectes difficilis (Faxon) (Decapoda:
Astacidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 84: 449-458.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 786

 Scientific Name:
Orconectes burri
Common Name:
Blood River Crayfish
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This species is endemic to the Blood River drainage, a Tennessee River tributary in western
Kentucky and northwest Tennessee (Taylor and Schuster 2004).
Habitat:
It prefers sand and gravel substrate im medium and small size streams (Williams and Bivens
2001). Taylor and Sabaj (1998) report that O. burri occurs in lowland stream habitat with minimal
gradient. It is found in small to medium-sized streams with substrates of gravel and sand, only in
flowing water. It was captured from under tree roots and in accumulated woody debris piles or
wood vegetation, or in sand and gravel substrate, sand in slow-flowing runs and pools, and gravel in
shallow riffles. The stream banks were usually steep and vegetated.
Populations:
This rare species occurs in a single drainagae. No estimates of population size or trend are
available (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled in Kentucky and Tennessee. The State of
Kentucky lists Orconectes burri as Threatened. In Tennessee, the Blood River crayfish is a
Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The American Fisheries Society lists Orconectes burri as
Endangered due to habitat loss and restricted range (Taylor et al. 2007).
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) states: "Suitable habitat has been lost in the lower part of the drainage due to
impoundment. . . There is heavy recreational fishing pressure in the area and the nearby Kentucky
Lake is a popular destination for fishing. Further, there is a lot of channelization in Kentucky and
if the decision was taken to rechannelize this drainage, there could be negative impacts on the
species."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This crayfish is listed as threatened in Kentucky, but this designation provides no habitat
protection.
Other factors:
Orconectes burri is potentially threatened by the introduction of invasive species which are used as
bait for fishing in the area where it occurs (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Taylor, C. A. and M. H. Sabaj. 1998. A new crayfish of the genus Orconectes from the Blood
River drainage of western Kentucky and Tennessee (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington 111(3):645-652.
Taylor, C.A. and G.A. Schuster. 2004. The Crayfishes of Kentucky. Illinois Natural History

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 787

 Survey Special Publication, 28: viii + 210 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Williams, C.E. and R.D. Bivens. 2001. Annotated list of the crayfishes of Tennessee. Open file
report (April 2001) of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Talbott, Tennessee. Available
online at http://www.homestead.com/twra4streams/files/Crayfish.PDF. Last accessed April 15,
2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 788

 Scientific Name:
Orconectes eupunctus
Common Name:
Coldwater Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern
Range:
Orconectes eupunctus has a range less than 100-250 square km (less than about 40 to 100 square
miles) according to NatureServe (2008). It is restricted to the Spring and Eleven Point Rivers in
southeastern Missouri and northeastern Arkansas (Pfleiger 1996). It occurs in two small
drainages that cross the state line between Missouri and Arkansas (NatureServe 2008). Each state
may be counting extensions of the same populations as occurrences, causing a cumulative error in
estimating the number of rangewide occurrences. The Eleven Point River and Spring River
drainages are fed by Greer Spring and Mammoth Springs, two of the largest Ozark springs. In
Eleven Point River, it does not inhabit tributaries and does not ascend the river itself much above
Greer Spring. In the Spring River drainage it occurs in the Greer Spring Branch and West Fork of
Spring Rvier (Pflieger 1996). The Missouri Natural Heritage Program has recorded seven extant
occurrences from two watersheds. These occurrences are all believed to be in good condition
(although last surveyed in late 1980's).
In Missouri Orconectes eupunctus is found in Oregon and Howell Counties (Missouri Fish and
Wildlife Information System 2009) and it is very localized where found. The species is
considered the most abundant crayfish in the Eleven Point River and most common crayfish in the
Greer Spring Branch and West Fork of Spring River (Pfleiger 1996). It has a highly restricted
range with large local populations.
Habitat:
The Coldwater crayfish is found in rivers in coarse gravel and rock substrates in swift, shallow
water (Pflieger 1996).
Populations:
According to NatureServe (2008), Orconectes eupunctus has as many as 6-20 populations with a
total of 2500-10,000 individuals. Crandall (pers. comm. 1998 cited in NatureServe 2008) feels
the population size is probably smaller then 10,000 individuals.
Population Trends:
In the short term, this species is declining by 10-30 percent (NatureServe 2008). Recently
abundance has declined to the point of near extirpation from the West Fork Spring River (Black)
in Arkansas. It is also declining in Missouri where it was once (circa 1984) a dominant portion of
the crayfish community, due to invasion of Orconectes neglectus into the system (Magoulick and
DiStefano 2007).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Arkansas and imperiled in
Missouri. It is ranked as Special Concern by the American Fisheries Society. It is listed as rare in
Missouri, indicating a narrow distribution and restricted habitat specificity (Crandall 1998).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 789

 Habitat destruction:
This species requires clean, cold streams which are becoming increasingly rare in its range
(Missouri Natural Heritage Program 2009).
Allert et al (2005) studied metal contamination of crayfish habitat in Missouri. O. eupunctus was
found in one stream used as a reference. Allert found that “mining-derived metals represent a
significant threat to functionally important crayfish communities in areas downstream of leadzinc mines.” Furthermore, “Crayfish were absent or had significantly lower densities at mining
affected sites. Crayfish survival was also lower at mining-affected sites in both laboratory and insitu toxicity tests, and was negatively correlated with metal concentrations in detritus and crayfish
tissue.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
Other factors:
This crayfish is highly threatened by invasive crayfish. It is nearly extirpated from the West Fork
Spring River (Black) in Arkansas and Missouri due to invasion of Orconectes neglectus into the
system (Magoulick and DiStefano 2007). Displacement of this species by Cambarus neglectus
chaenodactylus has been well studied (Rabalais and Magoulick 2006; Magoulick and DiStefano
2007; Larson and Magoulick 2008, 2009). Rabalais and Magoulick suggests that microhabitat
competition may be at work, while Larson and Magoulick (2009) suggest differential predation or
reproductive interference.
Due to a highly restricted range, this species could also be eliminated by catastrophic events
(NatureServe 2008).
References:
Allert, A.L., Fairchild, J.F., DiSteafano, R.J., Besser, J.M. Schmitt, ,C.J. and Brumbaugh, W.G..
2005. Assessing the impact of lead-zinc mining on crayfish (Orconectes spp.) communities in
the Missouri Ozarks. Poster presentation, available online at
www.mostreamteam.org/Documents/Issues/usgs.pdf. Last accessed June 7, 2009.
Crandall, K.A. 1998. Conservation phylogenetics of Ozark crayfishes: assigning priorities for
aquatic habitat protection. Biological Conservation 84(2):107-117.
Crandall, K.A. Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology, 574 Widtsoe Building, Brigham
Young University, Provo, UT 84602-5255. (801)378-3495. Personal communication.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Larson, E.R. and D.D. Magoulick. 2008. Comparative Life History of Native (Orconectes
eupunctus) and Introduced (Orconectes neglectus) Crayfishes in the River Drainage of Arkansas
and Missouri. Am. Midl. Nat. 160:323–341.
Larson, E.R. and D.D. Magoulick. 2009. Does juvenile competition explain displacement of a
native crayfish by an introduced crayfish? Biol. Invasions 11:725–735.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 790

 Magoulick, D.D. and R.J. DiStefano. 2007. Invasive crayfish Orconectes neglectus threatens
native crayfishes in the Spring River drainage of Arkansas and Missouri. Southeastern Naturalist,
6(1): 141-150.
Magoulick, D.D.and R.J. DiStefano. 2007. Invasive Crayfish Orconectes neglectus Threatens
Native Crayfishes in the Spring River Drainage of Arkansas and Missouri.
Southeastern Naturalist 6:1(141–150).
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Missouri Fish and Wildlife Information System. 2009. Detailed information on Orconectes
eupunctus. Available online at
http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/applications/mofwis/Mofwis_Detail.aspx?id=0700006. Last accessed
April 23, 2009.
Pflieger, W. L. 1987. An introduction to the crayfishes of Missouri. Missouri Conservationist
48:17-31.
Pflieger, W.L. [B. Dryden, editor]. 1996. The Crayfishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 152 pp.
Rabalais, M.R. and D.D. Magoulick. 2006. Influence of an invasive crayfish species on diurnal
habitat use and selection by a native crayfish species in an Ozark stream. American Midland
Naturalist, 155: 295-306.
Rabalais, M.R.and D.D. Magoulick. 2006. Influence of an Invasive Crayfish Species on Diurnal
Habitat Use and Selection by a Native Crayfish Species in an Ozark Stream.
Am. Midl. Nat. 155:295–306.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 791

 Scientific Name:
Orconectes hartfieldi
Common Name:
Yazoo Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Yazoo crayfish is found in the Yazoo River basin in Calhoun, Carroll, Panola, Tallahatchie,
and Yalobusha counties, Mississippi (Fitzpatrick and Suttkus 1992).
Adams (2008) reports "In 2007, I collected a female O. hartfieldi from the Yocona River
drainage, the first record for Lafayette County, MS. The Mississippi Museum of Natural Science
database indicates a female collected in 1997 from the extreme headwaters of the Yockanookany
River in the Pearl River basin in Choctaw County, MS, which, if valid, is a considerable range
extension."
Habitat:
O. Hartfieldi inhabits small creeks with moderate flow and a firm bottom; it seems to prefer pools
(NatureServe 2008). Adams (2008), citing Fitpatrick and Suttkus (1992), indicates that:
"Orconectes hartfieldi has been collected from streams with sand/silt or compacted clay
substrates in channels up to 15 m wide. Streams were shallow (several cm) to deep (>1 m) with
wetted widths of 2 - 10 m at low flows and slow to moderate velocities. At least two stream sites
where the species lived were used by cattle, with water temperatures at one site as high as 28 C,
suggesting the species can tolerate somewhat degraded conditions. Some individuals were
collected under ledges in plunge pools formed on the downstream side of road bridges"
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) roughly estimates fewer than 20 populations with 1000-2500 total
individuals of O. hartfieldi, based principally on its wide geographic range. There are only 5
known sites, but probably more can be found. It is known from only 11 specimens and is rare
where it does occur.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks Orconectes hartfieldi as imperiled. The State of Mississippi classifies
O. hartfieldi as a Tier 1 Species in Need of Immediate Conservation Action. It is ranked as
vulnerable by the IUCN and as threatened by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
Concerning threats to this species, NatureServe (2010) states: "It seems to be able to tolerate
somewhat degraded conditions, as two of the streams it inhabits are used by small holder
livestock farming and have water temperatures up to 28C (Fitzpatrick and Suttkus 1992). It is
likely to be affected by row-crop agriculture, deforestation, roads, channelization, and
headcutting. Large reservoirs currently fragment the species range, however it occurs throughout
a primarily rural area."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2010) reports that no occurrences are appropriately protected and managed.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 792

 References:
Adams, S. B. 2008. Orconectes hartfieldi. USDA Forest Service, Crayfishes of Mississippi
website, Oxford, MS. Available online at http://maps.fs.fed.us/crayfish/factsheets/FS0071.pdf.
Last accessed November 18, 2009.
Fitzpatrick, J. F., Jr. and R. D. Suttkus. 1992. A new crawfish of the genus Orconectes from the
Yazoo River system of Mississippi (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington 105(1):70-76.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 793

 Scientific Name:
Orconectes incomptus
Common Name:
Tennessee Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Although previously observed in only 4 caves, Orconectes incomptus is now known from 12 caves
with a fragmented range in Jackson, Putnam, and Smith counties in Tennessee (Buhan and
Crandall 2008).
Habitat:
The Tennessee Cave crayfish is found in shallow pool areas in subterranean streams (NatureServe
2008).
Populations:
This species is known from 12 locations and occurs in small populations (Buhay and Crandall
2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species faces a short term decline of 10-30 percent, and that
it is stable to moderately declining in the long term (25 percent change to 50 percent decline).
A recent study by Buhay and Crandall (2005) showed this species exhibited little difference
between historical and current genetic diversity estimates but there is inferred decline in quality
of cave habitat (Buhay and Crandall 2008).
Status:
NatureServe ranks this species as critically imperiled. The State of Tennessee lists it as
Endangered. It is also ranked as endangered by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2010) states: "Orconectes incomptus is threatened due to its severely restricted
habitat and the fragmentation of the habitat. Few individuals were found in the survey and they
occur on both sides of the Cumberland River. The restricted cave environment presents a number
of potential threats. Caves are often subject to surface runoff and can easily bring in contaminants
such as sewage or fecal contamination, pesticides or herbicides, and hazardous materials via
accidental spills or deliberate dumping such as road salting (Lewis 2001). Sedimentation resulting
in habitat alteration is a common threat caused by construction, farming, logging, and other
development that disturbs the groundcover. It can block recharge sites in caves and alter flow
velocity and volume (Lewis 2001). Flooding can be a serious threat to cave dwelling species as it
changes stream flow. Stream back-flowing is another source of contamination introduction into
cave habitats, as is local exploration for oil, water or gas, which may encounter cave passages
(Lewis 2001)."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species is listed as endangered by the state of Tennessee, but this designation does not convey
habitat protection.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 794

 References:
Buhay, J.E. and K.A. Crandall. 2005. Subterranean phylogeography of freshwater crayfishes
shows extensive gene flow and surprisingly large population sizes. Molecular Ecology, 14:
4259-4273.
Buhay, J.E. and K.A. Crandall. 2008. Taxonomic revision of cave crayfishes in the genus
Orconectes, subgenus Orconectes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) along the Cumberland Plateau,
including a description of a new species, Orconectes barri. Journal of Crustacean Biology,
28(1): 57-67.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1989. A illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,
Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 480. 236 pp.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. and T. C. Barr, Jr. 1972. Origins and affinities of the troglobitic crayfishes of
North America (Decapoda: Astacidae) II. Genus Orconectes. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology 105. 84 pp.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. H.H. Hobbs III, and M.A. Daniel. 1977. A review of the troglobitic decapod
Crustaceans of the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 244: 1-183.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 795

 Scientific Name:
Orconectes jonesi
Common Name:
Sucarnoochee River Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Sucarnoochee River crayfish is found in the Sucarnoochee River drainage in west central
Alabama and east central Mississippi. More populations may be detected, expanding the range
(Fitzpatrick 1996).
Habitat:
O jonesi is found in moderate to swiftly flowing streams, usually in riffle areas with emergent
aquatic vegetation and sandy bottoms (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) crudely estimates 21 - 80 populations with 1000-2500 indivudiuals of
Orconectes jonesi. In Alabama it is known only from the Sucamoochee River drainage in Sumter
Co. (Mirarchi et al., 2004; appendix 1.2 pub. separately; Schuster and Taylor, 2004).
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as vulnerable in Mississippi and not ranked in Alabama. The
State of Mississippi classifies it as a Tier 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need, while
Alabama calls it a Priority 2 GCN Species. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as
threatened by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
Concerning threats to this species, NatureServe (2010) states: "Orconectes jonesi is threatened
by the extensive agricultural land use which occurs in the Sucarnooche river basin. This has caused
there to be high levels of sedimentation, chlorophyll and nitrogen present in the water (Schuster
et al., 2008). O. jonesi are smaller, with lower fecundity and smaller eggs than most other species
from the subgenus. At one site, several ovigerous females carried empty eggshells and one male
had deformed gonopods, suggesting possible water quality problems."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2010) reports that no occurrences of this species are protected.
Other factors:
This crayfish is threatened by water pollution from agriculture.
References:
Fitzpatrick, J. F. Jr. 1992. A new crawfish of the genus Orconectes from east-central Mississippi
and adjacent Alabama (Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae). Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington 105:780-787.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 796

 Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1996. The Cahaba River of Alabama: a microcosm of impact studies?
Freshwater Crayfish 11: 87-98.
Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil.
2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for
Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.
Schuster, G. A. and C.A. Taylor. 2004. Report on the crayfishes of Alabama: literature and
museum database review, species list with abbreviated annotations and proposed conservation
statuses. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report, 2004(12): 47 pp.
Schuster, G.A., C.A. Taylor, and J. Johansen. 2008. An annotated checklist and preliminary
designation of drainage distributions of the crayfishes of Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3):
493-504.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 797

 Scientific Name:
Orconectes maletae
Common Name:
Kisatchie Painted Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Kisatchie Painted crayfish is known from only seven localities in Natchitoches and Sabine
parishes, Louisiana, and Upshur County, Texas. Specimens from Coal County, Oklahoma, were
intrepreted by Walls (1972) as intergrades between this crayfish and Orconectes (H.) difficilis.
The freshwater crayfish, Orconectes difficilis, formerly had four subspecies (O. difficilis blacki,
O. difficilis maletae, O. difficilis hathawayi, O. difficilis difficilis) (Walls, 1985), all of which
have been elevated to full species status (see Fitzpatrick, 1987; Hobbs, 1989). Texas records are
O. maletae and Louisiana records are O. blacki and O. hathawayi.
Habitat:
O. malatae is found in streams of varying sizes and bottoms, almost always with leaf litter.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are 6-20 total populations of O. maletae with 1000-2500
total individuals. It is not uncommon where found, and is known from 7 localities.
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown, but site level extirpation has occurred in Louisiana (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This species is critically imperiled in Texas and imperiled in Louisiana (NatureServe 2008). The
State of Louisiana has classified O. maletae as a Rare Animal of Conservation Concern. It is
ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as threatened by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
According to NatureServe (2008), historical stresses to this species include clear-cutting
practices and the conversion of forests to agricultural use. Current stresses include clear-cutting
and the resulting increase in silt and loss of shade, and impoundments for recreational use.
NatureServe (2008) states: "This species has a relatively restricted and disjunct range . . . There is
a clear deterioration in habitat quality in the Louisiana portion of its range, where site level
extirpation has occurred." NatureServe states that this species' habitat also needs to be monitored
for industrial development.
The Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (2005) reports that threats to this species include
conversion of forests to agricultural uses, practices that lead to increased sediment loads in
streams, practices that lead to loss of shade in the water, and impoundments.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species is found on the Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana and is a Forest Service
Sensitive Species (USFS 2005) but this designation provides only discretionary levels of
protection. The Nature Conservancy has adopted O. maletae as an Animal Conservation Target with
a goal of 1 viable occurrence in its land portfolio (TNC 2003). No existing regulatory

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 798

 mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1987. The subgenera of the crawfish genus Orconectes (Decapoda:
Cambaridae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 100(1): 44-74.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. 2005. Fact Sheet on Kisatchie Painted
Crawfish. Available online at
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/pdfs/experience/naturalheritage/rareanimal/kisatchiepaintedcrawfis
h.pdf. Last accessed June 30, 2009.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
The Nature Conservancy. 2003. West Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregional Conservation Plan.
Available online at
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/texas/files/wgcpecoregionalplan.pdf.
Last accessed October 11, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Regional Forester Sensitive Species, Regions 8 And 9. Available
online at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480093cd9&dispositi
on=attachment&contentType=pdf. Last accessed June 30, 2009.
Walls, J. G. 2003. Survey of localities for fourteen threatened crawfish species in Louisiana.
Final report to the Louisana Natural Heritage Program CFMS # 594106.
Walls, J.G. 1972. Three new crayfishes related to Orconectes difficilis (Faxon) (Decapoda:
Astacidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 84: 449-458.
Walls, J.G. 1985. Distribution and natural history of the crawfish Orconectes difficilis
(Decapoda: Astacidae) in Louisiana. Southwestern Naturalist, 30(2): 189-194.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 799

 Scientific Name:
Orconectes marchandi
Common Name:
Mammoth Spring Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Mammoth Spring crayfish is known from 20 locations in 8 sub-watersheds of the Spring
River watershed in southwest Missouri and two northwest Arkansas counties (Flinders and
Magoulick 2005).
Habitat:
Warm Fork in Missouri is a medium-sized, clear Ozark stream with well defined riffles and runs
(Pflieger, 1996). Flinders and Magoulick (2005) found this species almost exclusively in smaller
moving tributary streams of the Spring River, predominantly in shallow, slow-moving water in
gravel and pebble substrates compared to previous studies that found it in faster moving riffle
habitats. Flinders and Magoulick (2007) found small individuals were more broadly distributed
across pools, backwaters, stream margins, and vegetated habitats. Small individuals also strongly
selected vegetated, backwater and stream margin habitats at all sites and times even though these
habitat types comprised only 15 percent of the available habitats.
Populations:
This species is known from 20 locations in a single watershed.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) indicates that this species is increasing in the short term, and relatively stable
to increasing in the long term.
Several new localities were recently found in slower moving tributaries in Spring River drainage
(Flinders and Magoulick 2005).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks O. marchandi as imperiled in Arkansas and critically imperiled in
Missouri. It is ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Taylor et al. 2007). It is
listed as endangered in Missouri. The primary threat to this species is displacement by an invasive
crayfish.
Habitat destruction:
The Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (2008) reports that this species faces threats from chemical
alteration and sedimentation of habitat due to recreation, and riparian habitat destruction from
channel alteration.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that at least one locality occurs in a state park. Though this species is
listed by the state of Missouri, this designation conveys no habitat protection.
Other factors:
This species occurs in a single watershed, and the greatest threat to its survival is the spread of an
invasive crayfish species. NatureServe (2008) states: "An invasive species O. neglectus is reported
to be in western part of the drainage in south fork Spring River, entering the system some time

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 800

 between 1996 and 2000, and has been moving at a rate of 28 km over 10 years. This invasive
References:
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. 2008. Aquatic and Terrestrial Crayfish Report. Available online
at www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/08crayfish.pdf, last accessed March 31, 2009.
Flinders, C.A. and D.D. Magoulick. 2005. Distribution, habitat use and life history of streamdwelling crayfish in the Spring River drainage of Arkansas and Missouri with a focus on the
imperiled Mammoth Spring crayfish (Orconectes marchandi). American Midland Naturalist 154:
358-374.
Flinders, C.A. and D.D. Magoulick. 2007. Habitat use and selection within Ozark lotic crayfish
assemblages: spatial and temporal variation. Jorunal of Crustacean Biology, 27(2): 242-254.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Pflieger, W. L. 1987. An introduction to the crayfishes of Missouri. Missouri Conservationist
48:17-31.
Pflieger, W.L. [B. Dryden, editor]. 1996. The Crayfishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 152 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Williams, A.B. 1954. Speciation and distribution of the crayfishes of the Ozark Plateaus and
Ouachita Provinces. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 36: 803-918.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 801

 Scientific Name:
Orconectes packardi
Common Name:
Appalachian Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is found in 16 caves in the Cumberland River basin in
southeastern Kentucky. Hobbs Jr. (1989) reports that the species is found intergraded with the
nominate subspecies in Wayne County, Kentucky, and Fentress County, Tennessee, but no "pure"
packardi forms have been found in Tennessee yet (Taylor and Schuster, 2004). This "intergrade"
has now been afforded species status, Orconectes barri (Buhay and Crandall, 2008).
Habitat:
According to NatureServe (2008), the Appalachian Cave Crayfish inhabits quiet pools of
subterranean streams.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) indicates that this species has between 6 and 20 populations in 16 caves in
the middle Cumberland River drainage (on both sides of the Cumberland River) in McCreary,
Pulaski, Rockcastle and Wayne Cos. It is likely that there are more populations to be found
(Taylor and Schuster, 2004). Buhay and Crandall (2005; 2008) list only Rockcastle, Pulaski, and
Wayne Cos., Kentucky because individuals at the other locations have been reassigned to a new
species, O. barri.
Status:
This crayfish is listed as threatened by the American Fisheries Society and by the state of
Kentucky. It is ranked as imperiled by NatureServe (2008) and as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
The subterranean cave habitat used by this species is susceptible to groundwater contamination
from agriculture (NatureServe 2008). According to Buhay and Crandall (2008), major road
construction is an imminent threat to many populations of this species.
Taylor et al. (2007) state that this species is threatened by habitat degradation and loss, as well as
limited range.
According to Dickson and Franz (1980) “[b]ecause troglobitic organisms have evolved in
relatively constant environments, many of their adaptations may be highly specialized allowing
existence only under prevailing ambient conditions. The reduction of O2 consumption and energy
turnover of gill tissues reported in this study gives evidence of the highly specialized nature of
physiological and biochemical adaptations in troglobitic organisms. Because of these adaptations
troglobitic species may be susceptible to subtle changes in water quality.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species, and no populations are appropriately
protected. Although it is listed as threatened by the state of Kentucky, this designation provides no
protection for the species' habitat.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 802

 References:
Buhay, J.E. and K.A. Crandall. 2005. Subterranean phylogeography of freshwater crayfishes
shows extensive gene flow and surprisingly large population sizes. Molecular Ecology, 14:
4259-4273.
Buhay, J.E. and K.A. Crandall. 2008. Taxonomic revision of cave crayfishes in the genus
Orconectes, subgenus Orconectes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) along the Cumberland Plateau,
including a description of a new species, Orconectes barri. Journal of Crustacean Biology,
28(1): 57-67.
Dickson, G.W. and R. Franz. 1980. Respiration Rates, ATP Turnover and Adenylate Energy
Charge in Excised Gills of Surface and Cave Crayfish. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology A, 65:4(375-379).
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. and T. C. Barr, Jr. 1972. Origins and affinities of the troglobitic crayfishes of
North America (Decapoda: Astacidae) II. Genus Orconectes. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology 105. 84 pp.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Li, H and R.L. Cooper. 2001. Spatial familiarity in the blind cave crayfish, Orconectes australis
packardi. Crustaceana, 74:417.
Li, H. and R.L. Cooper. 2002. The Effect of Ambient Light on Blind Cave Crayfish: Social
Interactions The Effect of Ambient Light on Blind Cave Crayfish: Social Interactions. Journal of
Crustacean Biology. 22(2): 449-458.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, C.A. and G.A. Schuster. 2004. The Crayfishes of Kentucky. Illinois Natural History
Survey Special Publication, 28: viii + 210 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Ziemba, R.E., A. Simpson, R. Hopper, and R.L. Cooper. 2003. A comparison of antennule
structure in a surface- and a cave-swelling crayfish, genus Orconectes (Decapoda, Astacidae).
Crustaceana, 76(7): 859-869.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 803

 Scientific Name:
Orconectes sheltae
Common Name:
Shelta Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
G1
Range:
Orconectes sheltae is endemic to a single location, Shelta Cave in Huntsville, Alabama (Cooper
and Cooper 1997).
Habitat:
This species lives in subterranean pools in a single cave (Cooper and Cooper 1997).
Ecology:
This crayfish may be dependent on nutrient input from gray bats.
Populations:
There is only one population of this species. J.E. and M.R. Cooper estimate population size to be
96-102 individuals, based on 942 plus person-hrs of study in the cave (Cooper 1975, Cooper and
Cooper 1997). Prior to 1975 only 17 individuals had ever been collected and later 97 individuals
were examined and released.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports a severe short-term decline of greater than 70 percent for this
species (Cooper and Cooper 1997, Buhay and Crandall 2008). Over the long-term the species has
declined by 75 to over 90 percent.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled. The State of Alabama has classified
it as a Priority 1 Species of Special Concern. AFS lists it as Endangered (Taylor et al. 1997). The
National Speleological Society owns the single cave where this species occurs, and in erecting a
gate to prevent vandalism, incidentally cut off nutrient input from bats. This crayfish is highly
threatened by the loss of bat guano, disturbance from school groups, and pollution from
residential run-off.
Habitat destruction:
Concerning threats to this species, NatureServe (2010) states: "This species is impacted by a
variety of factors namely land development and vandalism, cave abandonment by Gray Bats,
insecticides and water level fluctuations. In the 1960s there was extensive vandalism in the cave
and the surrounding land was developed with residential housing (Cooper and Cooper, 1997). In
1967, the cave was purchased by the National Speleological Society which owns the entrances and
controls access to the cave. The Headquarters of the NSS has been built above the cave. In an
attempt to curb vandalism, cave gates were built at the entrances to the caves in 1968, but these
were not conducive for Gray Bats. By 1970, the bats had abandoned the cave, reducing the amount
of nutrients available for O. sheltae. Overall cave biodiversity has declined since the Gray Bats
left the cave (Cooper and Cooper, 1997). In 2002, a fence was erected 20 feet around the cave to
encourage the bats to return, but to continue to deter vandalism (Cooper and Cooper, 1997).
Some water chemistry analysis has been conducted at the cave and indicated high levels of
insecticide heptachlor epoxide in 1989 presumably from surrounding residential gardens.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 804

 Additionally, this area of Alabama due to geological circumstances is prone to having high levels
of radon gas. Levels in the cave were very high at 400-500 pCi/L which must be having an adverse
impact on this species. Finally, the species is sensitive to water level fluctuations as a result of
droughts . . . Attempts have been made to encourage the bats to return, but so far these attempts
have proved unsuccessful. A cave fence has been erected to reduce vandalism, which has been
successful. The NSS is controlling the number of visitors to the cave, but still allowing school
groups to visit, thus continuing to cause disturbance to O. sheltae's habitat. However, no attempts
have been made to improve the water quality of the cave, by reducing insecticide run off from
nearby gardens."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that access to Shelta Cave is strictly controlled by the owner (National
Speleological Society, managed by Huntsville Grotto). NSS has also a specific management plan
for the cave. Yet private ownership of the cave has not succeeded in protecting the crayfish.
School tours are still authorized in the cave, causing ongoing disturbance. Erection of a fence to
prevent vandalism blocked bats from the cave, fundamentally altering its ecology and threatening
this crayfish. Private ownership also does not protect the crayfish from on-going chemical
pollution from surrounding residential runoff.
Other factors:
This species is threatened by residential run-off and by the loss of gray bats.
References:
Buhay, J.E. and K.A. Crandall. 2008. Taxonomic revision of cave crayfishes in the genus
Orconectes, subgenus Orconectes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) along the Cumberland Plateau,
including a description of a new species, Orconectes barri. Journal of Crustacean Biology,
28(1): 57-67.
Cooper, J. E., and M. R. Cooper. 1997a. New troglobitic crayfish of the genus Orconectes,
subgenus Orconectes (Decapoda: Cambaridae), endemic to Shelta Cave, Huntsville, Alabama.
Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 59(3):119-127.
Cooper, J.E. 1975. Ecological and behavorial studies in Shelt a Cave, Alabama, with emphasis on
decapod crustaceans. Ph. D . dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. xvi +
364p.
Elliot, W.R. Critical Issues in Cave Biology. In 2005 National Cave and Karst Management
Symposium. Available online at
http://www.utexas.edu/tmm/sponsored_sites/biospeleology/pdf/2006%20cavebio%20issues.pdf
. Last accessed October 17, 2009.
Godwin, James (Jim) Aquatic Zoologist. Alabama Natural Heritage Program. 1500 East Fairview
Ave, Huntingdon College, Cloverdale Campus, Montgomery, AL 36106-2148
Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil.
2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for
Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.
Schuster, G. A. and C.A. Taylor. 2004. Report on the crayfishes of Alabama: literature and
museum database review, species list with abbreviated annotations and proposed conservation
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 805

 statuses. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report, 2004(12): 47 pp.
Schuster, G.A., C.A. Taylor, and J. Johansen. 2008. An annotated checklist and preliminary
designation of drainage distributions of the crayfishes of Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3):
493-504.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 806

 Scientific Name:
Orconectes virginiensis
Common Name:
Chowanoke Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Currently Stable
Range:
Orconectes virginiensis is restricted to the Chowan River drainage in southeast Virginia
(Fitzpatrick 1967) and extreme northeast North Carolina, plus three localities in the Roanoke
drainage in Martin, Bertie, and Halifax counties, North Carolina (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The Chowanoke crayfish is found in sluggish streams flowing through woodlands on sandy or
gravelly substrates. Vegetation may be sparse (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
LeGrand et al. (2006) cite streams and rivers in the Chowan and Roanoke drainages of Bertie,
Granville, Halifax, Hertford, Martin, and Northampton Cos., North Carolina. Cooper and Braswell
(1995) report it to be one of North Carolina's rarest crayfish. Abundance and range in Virginia
are unknown, according to NatureServe (2008).
Status:
According to NatureServe (2008), this species has a status of vulnerable in North Carolina and
imperiled in Virginia based on limited range. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
recognized this species as "Special Concern." Orconectes virginiensis was a C2 species under the
Federal ESA until that list was abolished. It is now a Federal Species of Concern. It is ranked as
stable by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
Orconectes virginiensis occurs within 6 miles of an Outlying Landing Field proposed by the U.S.
Navy, and its habitat may be affected by increased runoff from this air field (Allie 2009).
Other factors:
This species is potentially threatened by invasive crayfish. According to the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources (2006): “The red swamp crayfish has been introduced to South
Carolina and has been observed at several locations in the southeastern plains and coastal plain, but
it is unclear how widespread it is in the state. The lack of survey work since its introduction and
the difficulty distinguishing the red swamp crayfish from a native crayfish have made it particularly
difficult to determine the extent of its introduced range. In North Carolina, it has become
established in all drainages in the coastal plain and eastern piedmont plateau and appears to have
extirpated all the native crayfish at one location (Cooper 2003). Introduced crayfish are thought to
be the biggest threat to native crayfish species (Lodge et al. 2000 a,b) and the risk to our native
species is great if further introductions or extensive spread on non-indigenous crayfish occurs.”
According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (2000): “Nonindigenous
crayfishes can affect natives via competition, predation, genetic dilution, and by serving as disease
vectors. Further, introductions of nonindigenous crayfishes can enhance the negative effects of
environmental change on native species because non-natives are often more tolerant to

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 807

 environmental degradation. Lodge et al. (2000a) consider nonindigenous crayfish introductions to
be the single greatest threat to native crayfish biodiversity worldwide. In Europe, nonindigenous
crayfishes have contributed to serious declines and even local extinctions of its 5 native species.
In several areas of North America, combinations of environmental degradation and introductions
of non-native crayfishes have led to declines in native species, and to the extinction of at least one
native crayfish in northern California (Lodge et al. 2000a). During recent decades, at least 3 exotic
crayfish species have been introduced into North Carolina; therefore, we are concerned about
potential impacts to our ecosystems and native crayfish species.”
References:
Allie, A. 2009. An Inventory of the Wetlands Impacted by the U.S. Navy’s Proposed OLF Site in
Gates County, North Carolina. Masters Thesis, Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke
University. Available online at
www.dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/10161/987/1/AAllie_MP.pdf. Last accessed June
5, 2009.
Cooper, J. E., and A. L. Braswell. 1995. Observations of North Carolina crayfishes (Decapoda:
Cambaridae). Brimleyana 22:87-132.
Cooper, J.E. 2003. A report on adventive crayfishes in North Carolina. A report prepared for the
Subcommittee on Exotic Species of the Non-game Advisory
Committee to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 7 pp.
Fitzpatrick, J.F. Jr. 1967. The propinquus group of the crawfish genus Orconectes (Decapoda:
Astacidae). The Ohio Journal of Science, 67(3): 129-172.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich and J. Skurdal. 2000a. Nonindigenous crayfishes
threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: lessons from Europe.
Fisheries. 25(8):7-20.
Lodge, D.M., C.A. Taylor, D.M. Holdich and J. Skurdal. 2000b. Reducing impacts of exotic
crayfish introductions: new policies needed. Fisheries. 25(8):21-23.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 808

 McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2000. Proposal for Status Inventory of
Uncommon Crayfish In North Carolina. Available online at
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/nccrayfishes/craysurveyproposal.html.
Last accessed June 5, 2009.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Coastal Plain Aquatics fact sheet.
Available online at www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/habitat/CoastalPlainAquatics.pdf. Last accessed
May 2, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 809

 Scientific Name:
Orconectes wrighti
Common Name:
Hardin Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Known from only four historical sites prior to 1995, the Hardin crayfish has recently been
confirmed at 19 streams (including two of the four historic sites) in Hardin and McNairy Cos.,
Tennessee (Rohrbach and Withers 2006). NatureServe (2008) reports its range as 100-250
square km (about 40-100 square miles).
Habitat:
The bottom of Robinson Creek is red clay and gravel with a few rocks forming riffles and flow is
very slow with large pools of quiet water. Streams are 10-15 feet wide, heavily shaded, with some
wayside vegetation and some exposed gravel bars are present. The species occurs in streams
dominated by deposits of alluvial gravel. Substrate varies from sand to cobble but sand is never
more than co-dominant (Rohrbach and Withers 2006).
Populations:
This species is known from 19 streams in two counties, and total population size is crudely
estimated at 1000 - 2500 individuals (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports a short-term increasing trend and a long-term stable trend for this
species.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled. The State of Tennessee has listed
the species as Endangered. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as endangered by the
American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
Rohrbach and Withers (2006) note that many streams in this species' habitat appear potentially
and severely impacted by poor agricultural practices, limited riparian buffers, and improper ATV
use.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species. Though it is listed by the state
of North Carolina, this designation provides no habitat protection. Rohrbach and Withers (2006)
report that despite extensive surveys, this species was not found on the Shiloh NMP, although it
was expected. They also report that the Robinson Creek population is only marginally protected by
Pickwick Landing State Park and TVA Pickwick Reservoir Reservation, and that the same is true
for the Chambers Creek population (Rohrbach and Withers 2006).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 810

 References:
Adams, S. B. 2008. Orconectes wrighti. USDA Forest Service, Crayfishes of Mississippi
website, Oxford, MS. Available online at http://maps.fs.fed.us/crayfish/factsheets/FS0043.pdf.
Last accessed November 18, 2009.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Rohrbach, G.M. and D.I. Withers. 2006. A status survey of the Caney Fork crayfish (Cambarus
pristinus) and Hardin County crayfish (Orconectes wrighti) with notes on the Brawley's Fork
crayfish (Cambarus williami). Final report contract #ID-06-08125-00 submitted to the
Tennessee Natural Heritage Program, Nashville, Tennessee, 30 August 2006. 61 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 811

 Scientific Name:
Oryzomys palustris pop. 1
Common Name:
Pine Island Oryzomys
G Rank:
T1
Range:
The total range of the Pine Island Oryzomys is less than 250 square km on Pine Island and the
adjacent mainland near Ft. Myers in Florida (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The Pine Island oryzomys has been detected in marsh habitat with dense emergent vegetation
(Spartina patens), and in a garbage dump adjoining the wetland (NatureServe 2008). It has also
been detected using runways with cotton rats (Layne 1978).
Populations:
The Pine Island oryzomys is known from only two elemental occurrences, and has possibly been
extirpated from one of the two (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Populations of the Pine Island oryzomys have decreased due to elimination of habitat
(NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This mammal is critically imperiled (T1S1) (NatureServe 2008). It is known from only two
elemental occurrences, has possibly been eliminated from one of them, and occurs in a habitat
and area subject to human population growth and habitat destruction (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
This mammal is threatened by habitat destruction from the filling and draining of wetlands for
development (NatureServe 2008). Its habitat is also threatened by the invasion of woody plants
(NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this species. It occurs on Charlotte
Harbor State Reserve.
Other factors:
This mammal is threatened by the spread of woody plants into its marsh habitat (NatureServe
2008). It is also potentially vulnerable to predation from the spread of giant constrictors (Reed and
Rodda 2009).
References:
Layne, J. N., editor. 1978. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. 1. Mammals. State of
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. xx + 52 pp.
Reed, R.N., and G.H. Rodda. 2009. Giant constrictors: biological and management profiles and
an establishment risk assessment for nine large species of pythons, anacondas, and the boa
constrictor: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1202, 302 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 812

 Scientific Name:
Oryzomys palustris pop. 2
Common Name:
Sanibel Island Oryzomys
G Rank:
T1
Range:
This mammal occurs only on Sanibel Island in Lee County, Florida (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The Sanibel Island Oryzomys occurs near the water's edge in swales and cattail stands in
freshwater swamps of artesian origin (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
All of the elemental occurrences for this mammal are on one barrier island, but there may be
several small populations (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Abundance information is not available for this mammal. Its population has declined by an
unknown extent due to habitat destruction.
Status:
This critically imperiled population (T1S1) is known from only one Florida island that is being
extensively developed (NatureServe 2008). It is considered to be a Species of Special Concern by
the state of Florida.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat destruction is the greatest threat to this mammal which is threatened by the draining and
filling of marshes for development and by groundwater withdrawal for human consumption
(NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect this species. It is unknown whether any
occurrences are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). This mammal might
occur on Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge.
Other factors:
The Sanibel Island oryzomys is threatened by woody plant invasion of its habitat (NatureServe
2008). It is also potentially threatened by the spread of invasive giant constrictors (Reed and
Rodda 2009).
References:
Reed, R.N., and G.H. Rodda. 2009. Giant constrictors: biological and management profiles and
an establishment risk assessment for nine large species of pythons, anacondas, and the boa
constrictor: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009–1202, 302 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 813

 Scientific Name:
Oxyethira setosa
Common Name:
Setose Cream and Brown Mottled Microcaddisfly
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The setose cream and brown mottled microcaddisfly is a rare invertebrate endemic to the
southeastern United States. It is known from Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and was recently
discovered in New Jersey (NatureServe 2008, Cosgrove 2004 as cited in NatureServe 2008).
Natural heritage records indicate this species is present in Florida’s Liberty, Santa Rosa, and
Walton Counties, though Rasmussen (2004) collected just one specimen from a single site in
Eglin Air Force Base, in Alabama’s Autanga, Covington, Lauderdale, Lowndes, Marion, Mobile,
Monroe, and Tuscaloosa Counties, and from an unspecified location near Georgia (NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
It is found in small streams with high water quality and moderate stream flow gradients, often
found below small impoundments (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are an estimated 6-80 occurrences of this species, and total population size is thought to be
at least 1000 individuals (NatureServe 2008). The species is considered to be extremely rare in
Florida and Georgia, and uncommon in Alabama (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Population trends are unknown.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is critically imperiled in Florida, but not ranked in
Alabama, Georgia, or New Jersey.
Habitat destruction:
Loss and degradation of this species’ aquatic habitat are the primary threats to its persistence –
pollution and siltation from various anthropogenic sources destroys water quality, and dams and
diversions alter hydrological patterns, rendering habitat unsuitable (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to NatureServe (2008), few occurrences are appropriately protected or managed: one
population occurs on Eglin Air Force Base, but is not formally protected (Harris et al 1982).
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this microcaddisfly from the habitat loss
that imperils its persistence; though it is considered a species of special conservation concern and
is admittedly very rare, this recognition affords the setose cream and brown mottled
microcaddisfly no substantial protections.
Other factors:
This microcaddisfly is threatened by water pollution (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 814

 References:
Harris, S.C., P.K. Lago, and J.F. Scheiring. 1982. An annotated list of Trichoptera of several
streams on Elgin Air Force Base, Florida. Entomological News 93(3): 79-84.
Rasmussen, A.K. 2004. Species diversity and ecology of Trichoptera (caddisflies) and
Plecoptera (stoneflies) in ravine ecosystems of northern Florida. Unpublished PhD.
Dissertation, University of Florida. 130 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 815

 Scientific Name:
Percina bimaculata
Common Name:
Chesapeake logperch
AFS Status:
Endangered
Range:
The Chesaapeake logperch was historically distributed in the lower Susquehanna River Basin of
Pennsylvania and Maryland and the middle to lower Potomac River Basin of Maryland, Virginia
and the District of Columbia, USA, but is currently found only in the lower Susquehanna River
Basin (Near 2008).
Habitat:
The Chesapeake logperch is found in large rivers or the mouths of tributaries flowing into large
rivers. Neely and George (2006) observed the Chesapeake logperch near the mounth of
Conowingo Creek, Maryland, where the species was found in a riffle with a steep gradient with
large and small boulders over a bedrock substrate.
Populations:
The Chesapeake logperch has been collected in the lower Susquehanna River basin in
Pennsylvania and Maryland, including Conowingo, Deer, Broad and Octoraro creeks, as well as
Winters Run and the Northeast River, which flow into the Chesapeake Bay (Near 2008). Near
(2008) observed that "the species has been sporadically collected in tributaries and the main stem
of the lower Susquehanna River in Maryland and Pennsylvania."
Population Trends:
The Chesapeake logperch formerly occurred in the middle and lower Poptomac River basin,
including frequently in the District of Columbia, but has not been observed in this system since
the 1930s (Near 2008). Near (2008) observed that the failure to observe the species in the
Potomac since the 1930s "contrasts sharply with Smith and Bean’s (1899:186) statement that the
species is common 'in gravely streams' that flow through the District of Columbia."
Status:
Near (2008) concluded that "[g]iven the restricted distribution of the species and the apparent
extirpation from a substantial portion of its historical distribution, P. bimaculata would be a
worthy candidate for protection under the United States Endangered Species Act of 1973." Jelks
et al. (2008) classify the Chesapeake logperch as threatened. At a meeting of the Southeastern
Fishes Council and Center for Biological Diversity, there was agreement that the Chesapeake
logperch should be listed as theatened (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
Jelks et al. (2008) consider the Chesapeake logperch to be threatened based on the present or
threatened destruction, modification or reduction in range.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The Chesapeake logperch was only recently redescribed (Near 2008) and thus is not afforded
regulatory protection. Supporting this conclusion, Near (2008) concluded

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 816

 "The lack of a sustained concern for the extirpation of P. bimaculata from the Potomac River and
limited action from state and federal agencies are clearly the result of the species being
considered a synonym of P. caprodes for over 130 years. Percina bimaculata is appropriately
regarded as a species driven to obscurity by a taxonomic oversight. This status had removed the
species from the working lexicon of ichthyologists and evolutionary biologists working with the
diverse North American freshwater fish fauna, as well as appropriate governmental agencies that
can initiate important protection and conservation measures."
Other factors:
The Chesapeake logperch has a restricted range in a heavily developed portion of the country.
References:
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Near, T.J. 2008. Rescued from synonymy: a redescription of Percina bimaculata Haldeman and
a molecular phylogenetic analysis of logperch darters (Percidae: Etheostomatinae). Bulletin of
the Peabody Museum of Natural History 49(1):3–18
Neely, D. A. and A. L. George. 2006. Range extensions and rapid dispersal of Etheostoma
blennioides (Teleostei: Percidae) in the Susquehanna River drainage. Northeastern Naturalist
13:391-402.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 817

 Scientific Name:
Percina brevicauda
Common Name:
Coal Darter
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The coal darter was historically distributed in the Coosa, Cahaba, and Black Warrior river systems
in the eastern part of the Mobile Bay basin in Alabama (Suttkus et al. 1994). The darter’s
stronghold is now the main channel of the Cahaba River, primarily above the Fall Line. The coal
darter was last collected in the main channel of the Coosa River in 1950 and presently occurs in
that system only in Hatchet Creek where it is very rare (Boschung and Mayden 2004). The coal
darter has not been seen in the Black Warrior River at Tuscaloosa since 1889, and the only
remaining populations in the Black Warrior River system occur in the upper Locust Fork
(Boschung and Mayden 2004).
Habitat:
This darter's habitat consists of shallow gravel bars which are commonly blanketed with aquatic
plants such as river-weed (Podostemum ceratophyllum) and water-willow (Justicia americana). It
also occurs in shoots and troughs worn in bedrock at the foot of rapids (Boschung and Mayden
2004).
Populations:
This species is known from three river systems, which may represent three separate occurrences.
Only the Cahaba River system seems to support a robust population. Populations from the Black
Warrior River may be extirpated, but there may be extant populations in the upper Locust Fork
(Boschung and Mayden 2004). There are only a few records from the Coosa River, and the status
of this population is unknown (Bernie Kuhajda, pers. comm., 1998 cited in NatureServe 2008).
The coal darter was last collected in the main channel of the Coosa River in 1950 and presently
occurs in that system only in Hatchet Creek where it is very rare (Boschung and Mayden 2004).
A summary provided by the Southeastern Fishes Council for a meeting with Center for Biological
Diversity concluded (SFC and CBD 2010): "In a 2001 status survey in Locust Fork by the GSA,
Coal darters were found at 11 stations from the first shoal upstream of Bankhead Lake upstream
to the new Nectar bridge, and at three stations in Blackburn Fork for a total range of 65 river
miles. In a 1998 biological assessment of Locust Fork, coal darters were relatively common at
several stations, with up to 40 individuals collected at one station in Locust Fork, at WarriorKimberly Road, in 30 minutes. Far fewer coal darters were collected at sampling stations in the
2001 survey. The highest number collected was six taken at Deans Ferry Bridge in 30 minutes."
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown, but this species is extirpated or nearly extirpated from the Black Warrior and
Coosa River systems. Impoundments have extirpated populations of this species and separated
remaining populations (Boschung and Mayden 2004). A viable population remains in the Cahaba
River, but elsewhere populations are small and isolated. The remaining population in the Cahaba is
thought to be declining to stable (NatureServe 2008). The Alabama Dept. of Conservation and

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 818

 Natural Resources (2008) reports that this species may require population augmentation and/or
reintroduction to suitable habitats to maintain viability.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the coal darter as imperiled. The coal darter is ranked as threatened by
the American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008) due to habitat degradation and narrow range.
Williams et al. (1989), Warren et al. (2000), and Boschung and Mayden (2004) also categorize
this species as threatened. At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and the Center for
Biological Diversity, there was agreement that the coal darter should be listed as threatened (SFC
and CBD 2010). Shepard (2004) concluded: "Has a disjunct distribution in only three river
systems. As a main channel species, vulnerable to chronic water quality and habitat degradation as
well as acute impacts such as toxic chemical spills. A single major spill could potentially
eliminate this species from Cahaba River, Locust Fork, or Hatchet Creek."
Habitat destruction:
The coal darter is threatened by impoundments, urbanization, forestry, and coal mining (Shepard
2004, NatureServe 2008, SFC and CBD 2010). Impoundments have eliminated populations of this
species and continue to isolate remaining populations (Suttkus et al. 1994, Boschung and Mayden
2004). Ongoing urbanization and resulting non-point source pollution and demand for freshwater
threaten the remaining viable population(s) in the Cahaba (Shepard 2004, NatureServe 2008).
FWS (2007) states that physical alteration of the Cahaba River and water quality degradation
present significant challenges to the survival of aquatic biota, citing dams, channelization,
dredging, and coal mining as specific threats. Physical alterations to the river have degraded
substrates and have led to temperature fluctuations, changes in sediment transport, water depth,
and variable stream velocity, and variable dissolved oxygen and pH (FWS 2007). The Cahaba River
is also threatened by rapid urbanization and commercial development in Jefferson, Shelby and St.
Clair Counties (Ibid.). FWS (2007) states that rampant development of Jefferson and Shelby
Counties, and decades of coal mining have degraded river water quality and hydrologic flows that
continue to place stress on aquatic species. Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss as a threat to this
species.
Shepard (2004) concluded that:
"Cahaba River system and Locust Fork system are both experiencing increasingly degraded water
quality and habitat conditions. Species has only been collected sporadically in Hatchet Creek in
recent years and status of population there unclear. In Cahaba, greatest threats from
eutrophication and sedimenation related to urban sprawl in watershed. In Locust Fork system,
agricultural activities and surface mining for coal impact habitat and water quality."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this darter. NatureServe (2008)
reports that no occurrences are protected. The darter is a Species of Conservation Need in
Alabama, but this designation does not confer regulatory protection.
Other factors:
The major remaining population of this species is threatened by severe pollution (NatureServe
2008). During low water periods especially, the Cahaba River has serious water quality problems.
The upper Cahaba River receives approximately half of its flow from wastewater treatment plants,
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 819

 and encompasses approximately two-thirds of the remaining range of this species (NatureServe
2008). Water quality degradation from impoundments, and siltation from urbanization,
silviculture, and mining are known threats (NatureServe 2008).
The species also has a narrow range limited to three systems, where as an annual species it is
sensitve to any major disturbances (Shepard 2004).
References:
Alabama Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2008. Alabama's Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed March 15, 2010 at:
http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/pdfs/action_plans/al_action_plan.pdf
Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin.
Oxmoor House, Birmingham, Alabama. 820 pp.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.
Shepard T. 2004. Coal Darter. In Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee and P.E. O'Neil
(eds.). Alabama Wildlife Volume Two: Imperiled Aquatic Mussels and Fihses. Unversity of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Suttkus, R. D., B. A. Thompson, and H. L. Bart, Jr. 1994. Two new darters, Percina (Cottogaster),
from the southeastern United States, with a review of the subgenus. Occasional Papers of the
Tulane Museum of Natural History 4:1-46.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Habitat
Management Plan. February 2007. Available online at:
www.fws.gov/cahabariver/pdf/Final%20Draft%20Cahaba%20River%20HMP
Last accessed June 12, 2009.
Warren et al. 2000. "Diversity, Distribution, and Conservation Status of the Native Freshwater
Fishes of the Southern United States." Fisheries. 25(10):7-31.
Williams, JE., JE. Johnson, DA. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. NavarroMendoza, D.E. McAllister, and J.E. Deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America endangered,
threatened, or of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14(6):2-20.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 820

 Scientific Name:
Percina cymatotaenia
Common Name:
Bluestripe Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
The bluestripe darter occurs in the Osage and Gasconade river drainages in the northern Ozarks of
south-central Missouri (NatureServe 2008). It was widely distributed in the Gasconade River
system and in the Niangua River, but now inhabits only six streams: Big Piney River, Gasconade
River, Roubidoux Creek, Osage Fork, Whetstone Creek, and Niangua River (Page and Burr 1991,
Burr and Page 1993, Pflieger 1997).
Habitat:
This species occurs in quiet pools and backwaters with sandy substrate and abundant cover in
small to medium rivers. It prefers areas of submerged vegetation or organic debris. It also occurs
in areas of submerged vegetation over mud substrate, and is occasionally found along sand or
gravel bars in areas of emergent vegetation (Page and Burr 1991). It prefers very slight currents
and water depths of 25-140 cm. It has been associated with plant species including Justicia,
Ranunculus, Myriophyllum, Potamogeton, and Heteranthera (Pflieger 1984). Spawning apparently
takes place over gravel riffles (NatureServe 2008). Novinger (2006) describes this species'
habitat as clear, moderate to swift flowing streams in rocky habitats that are largely free of silt
and with sufficient riffle habitats for spawning, where this fish occurs along the periphery of slow
runs and pools in aquatic vegetation over silt-free substrate.
Populations:
There are less than 20 extant populations of this species (NatureServe 2008). For the period
1945-1995, Pflieger (1997) mapped approximately 29 collection sites, and several additional
historical locations which probably no longer support populations. This species has been recently
detected in several distinct occurrences in six streams. Total population size is estimated at
10,000 to more than 50,000 fish, based on the approximate average number of fish seined per 100
linear feet of stream (4.08 darters) in known occupied habitat, and on total occupied stream miles
(240 mi) (Pflieger 1984). It is unclear whether occupied stream miles includes intervening
inappropriate habitat, which would put the population estimate at the lower end of the range,
probably more than 10,000.
Population Trends:
This species is declining in the short-term (10-30 percent), and has experienced a substantial
long-term decline of 50-75 percent (NatureServe 2008). It declined rapidly in the first half of the
20th century, but few data are available on recent decades. Based on sampling in 1969 and 1980,
Pflieger (1984) concluded the species was in slow decline.
Status:
This fish has been extirpated from several historical locations (Pflieger 1997). It is ranked as
imperiled by NatureServe (2008) and by the state of Missouri. Warren et al. (2000) categorized
this species as threatened. It is classified as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Jelks
et al. 2008). It is classified as endangered by the IUCN. It is a Federal Species of Concern.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 821

 Habitat destruction:
The bluestripe darter requires high water quality and minimally altered hydrologic regime and is
thus highly vulnerable to habitat loss and modification (Novinger 2006). This species has a high
degree of impending threats associated with loss of stream habitats due to livestock impacts,
erosion, urban development, and hydrologic alteration (Novinger 2006). It is threatened by
increasing development and conversion of forest to pasture (Pflieger 1984). There is a general
trend in the rural Gasconade River watershed toward increased cattle numbers per pastured acre
(Blanc 2001). Sand and gravel mining are also a threat (Blanc 2001). The U.S. Forest Service
(2009) reports threats to this fish as channelization, impoundment, and gravel dredging. Jelks et
al. (2008) list habitat loss as a threat to this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this species, and no occurrences are
appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). It is protected as a nongame species by
the state of Missouri, but does not have habitat protection in the state. NatureServe (2008)
recommends that the Gasconade River by protected from impoundment, and that state water
quality standards be strengthened and enforced.
Other factors:
Non-point source pollution threatens this species, particularly from cattle manure, but also from
landfills, farms, mining operations, construction sites, forestry, residential septics, and impervious
surface in urbanized areas (Blanc 2001). Water quality in the Lower Gasconade River has been
rated as poor due to the lack of forested stream corridor (Blanc 2001). This species is also
threatened by accidental toxic spills. In December 1988, an oil spill from a broken pipeline near
Vienna released hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil into the main stem of the Gasconade
River (Blanc 2001). This fish is also potentially threatened by pollution from smokes and
obscurants used in military training on Fort Leonard Wood (Cropek et al. 2008).
References:
Blanc, T.J. 2001. Gasconade River watershed inventory and assessment. Missouri Department of
Conservation. Accessed Feb. 26, 2010 at:
http://www.mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/gascon/contents/
Burr, B. M., and L. M. Page. 1993. A new species of Percina (Odontopholis) from Kentucky and
Tennessee with comparisons to Percina cymatotaenia (Teleostei: Percidae). Bull. Alabama
Museum Natural History 16:15-28.
Cropek, D.M., D.J. Soucek, and T.S. Smith. 2008. Toxicological Effect of Military Smokes and
Obscurants on Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species. SERDP Project SI-1332. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory. Accessed Feb. 26, 2010 at:
http://www.serdp.org/Research/upload/SI-1332-FR.pdf
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 822

 Novinger, D. 2006. Endemic darters highlight unique aquatic natural communities of the
Missouri Ozarks. Missouri Natural Areas Newsletter. Missouri Department of Conservation.
Accessed February 26, 2010 at: http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/12499.pdf
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Pflieger, W. L. 1984. Distribution, status, and life history of the bluestripe darter, PERCINA
CYMATOTAENIA. Missouri Department of Conservation, Aquat. Ser. No. 18. 22 pp.
Pflieger, W. L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri. Revised edition. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Jefferson City. vi + 372 pp.
U.S. Forest Service. 2009. Mark Twain National Forest Non-native Invasive Plant Control
Project Environmental Assessment Appendices. Project Number: 16378. Accessed Feb. 26,
2010 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/marktwain/projects/projects/00601/ea_app3.html
Warren, M. L., Jr., B. M. Burr, S. J. Walsh, H. L. Bart, Jr., R. C. Cashner, D. A. Etnier, B. J.
Freeman, B. R. Kuhajda, R. L. Mayden, H. W. Robison, S. T. Ross, and W. C. Starnes. 2000.
Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern
United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-31.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 823

 Scientific Name:
Percina kusha
Common Name:
Bridled Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Endangered
Range:
The bridled darter is endemic to the headwaters of the Coosa River in Georgia and Tennessee,
where it is found in the main channel of the Conasauga River in Murray and Whitfield counties,
Georgia, and Bradley and Polk counties, Tennessee, three tributaries of the Conasauga River,
including Holly Creek, Murray County, Georgia; and Ball Play and Minnewauga creeks, Polk
County, Tennessee, in the main channel of the Etowah River in Dawson and Lumpkin counties,
Georgia, and in several tributaries of the Etowah, including Amicalola, Little Amicalola, Cochran
and Shoal creeks, Dawson County, Georgia (Williams et al. 2007).
Habitat:
Williams et al. (2007) list habitat as small rivers and lower reaches of tributaries with moderate
gradient, good water quality, and sand, gravel, cobble and bedrock substrates, adding that the
species "is usually found in flowing pools and backwaters adjacent to runs." Within pools, the
bridled darter has been observed hovering over underwater objects, such as boulders or woody
debris (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Williams et al. 2007). Etnier and Starnes (1993) emphasized that
the species is found in small rivers with "exceptional water quality."
Populations:
Williams et al. (2007) show 12 locations for the species and observe that the species "naturally
occurs in low abundance."
Population Trends:
Although the historic extent of the species is unknown, Williams et al. (2007) state that "its
association with slow-flowing habitats" suggests that the species "could have occurred throughout
the Conasauga and Etowah rivers, and possibly in the geographically intermediate Coosawattee
River, below the gorge now impounded by Carters Dam and Reservoir." If this is the case, the
species has experienced substantial decline.
Status:
Williams et al. (2007) conclude that this species is endangered, stating "considering its very
limited distribution in portions of two small rivers and threats to its habitat from municipal and
industrial development and forestry and agriculture activities we consider P. kusha to be
endangered." Likewise, Jelks et al. (2008) list the bridled darter as endangered because of threats
to habitat and a narrow and restricted range. NatureServe (2008) lists the species as critically
imperiled in both Tennessee and Georgia. The state of Georgia also lists the species as
endangered (Albanese 2008). At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for
Biological Diversity, there was agreement that the bridled darter should be listed as endangered
(SFC and CBD 2010). Albanese (2008) concluded: "This species has very small populations and
very limited range within each of the three areas (Etowah River, Conasauga River, and Talking
Rock Creek)."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 824

 Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) concludes that the bridled darter's habitat "is threatened by municipal and
industrial development and forestry and agriculture activities." AFS (Jelks et al. 2008) conclude
that the bridled darter is endangered because of the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or reduction of the species range. Some populations of this species may have been
extirpated by impoundment (Williams et al. 2007). Threatened by urban sprawl and pollution
from Atlanta (SFC and CBD 2010). Albanese (2009) concluded:
"Limited geographic range and the species’ restriction to clear flowing pools in medium-sized
rivers make the bridled darter vulnerable to habitat degradation. Land disturbance associated with
residential and urban development in the north Georgia mountains could threaten populations,
especially in the upper reaches of the Etowah River and Long Swamp Creek where development is
imminent. Failure to follow agricultural best-management practices is a threat to the Conasauga
River population."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are few to no regulatory protections for the bridled darter. It is listed as threatened (as P.
macrocephala) in Tennessee and endangered in Georgia, but these designations fail to provide any
protection for the species' habitat. Albanese (2008) concluded that "Public lands in the headwaters
of the Etowah and Conasauga river systems provide partial but not complete protection for these
two populations." A draft HCP was prepared for the Etowah River that includes the bridled darter,
but has never been finalized (Available at http://www.etowahhcp.org/documents.htm).
Other factors:
The bridled darter is threatened by pollution from a variety of sources (Williams et al. 2007).
References:
Albanese B. 2008. Species Account for Bridled Darter Percina kusha. Protected Animals of
Georgia. Georgia DNR, Wildlife Resources Division. Available at
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/assets/documents/gnhp/percina_kusha.pdf
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1991. An analysis of Tennessee's jeopardized fish taxa. Journal
of the Tennessee Academy of Science 66(4):129-133.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.
Freeman, M. C., E. R. Irwin, N. M. Burkhead, B. J. Freeman, and H. L. Bart, Jr. 2005. Status and
conservation of the fish fauna of the Alabama River system. American Fisheries Society
Symposium 45:557-585.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 825

 Johnson, C. E., K. J. Kleiner, and S. J. Herrington. 2002. Seasonal, diel and spawning habitat of
the rare Muscadine Darter (Percina sp.) in the Conasauga River, Georgia. Southeastern Fishes
Council Proceedings 44:1-11.
Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin.
Oxmoor House, Birmingham, Alabama. 820 pp.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.
Warren, M. L., Jr., B. M. Burr, S. J. Walsh, H. L. Bart, Jr., R. C. Cashner, D. A. Etnier, B. J.
Freeman, B. R. Kuhajda, R. L. Mayden, H. W. Robison, S. T. Ross, and W. C. Starnes. 2000.
Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern
United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-31.
Williams, J. D., D. A. Neely, S. J. Walsh and N. M. Burkhead. 2007. Three new percid fishes
(Percidae: Percina) from the Mobile Basin drainage of Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.
Zootaxa 1549:1-28.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 826

 Scientific Name:
Percina macrocephala
Common Name:
Longhead Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The longhead darter is a small freshwater fish species endemic to the central Appalachian region,
New York, and Pennsylvania. It is found in substantial numbers in West Virginia’s Elk River
system (NatureServe 2008) and relatively common in the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania, but
less so elsewhere in the state (Felbaum et al. 1995, Page and Near 2007, NatureServe 2008), rare
in Kentucky, and rare and extirpated from many locations in Tennessee (Burr and Warren 1986,
Etnier and Starnes 1993). Page and Near (2007) observed that the species "has been extirpated
from much of its range" and "appears to be common only in the Allegheny River, Pennsylvania."
Habitat:
The longhead darter is found primarily in creeks and medium-sized rivers with moderate flow
gradients, often in pool or riffle habitat (NatureServe 2008). This species favors boulder- and
cobble-strewn pools above or below deep, fast-flowing riffles (Burr and Warren 1986). It is
intolerant of polluted conditions (PA Fish and Boat Commission 1997).
Ecology:
Spawning takes place in spring (March-May) in gravel shoal habitat; eggs are buried in the
substrate and adults do not engage in any parental care (NatureServe 2008). Sexual maturity is
reached at approximately 2 years of age. Total lifespan is approximately 3-4 years (Page 1978,
Etnier and Starnes 1973, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Both adults and juveniles consume
invertebrates, including crayfish and insect larvae, foraging primarily in benthic habitat beneath
rocks and in substrate (Page 1978, 1983). The longhead darter is a non-migratory species
(NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are approximately 25 existing occurrences of P.
macrocephala across its range. The total adult population size of P. macrocephala is not known.
This species is generally described as widespread but rare and highly localized (Page and Burr
1991, Etnier and Starnes 1993). It was recently established that the populations formerly
considered to be P. macrocephala included a separate species, P. williamsi, reducing the total
population size of the longhead darter (Page and Near 2007). Even before this discovery, Etnier
and Starnes (1993) asserted that P. macrocephala warranted “threatened” status across its range.
Because of temporally varied observations of population size, it has been suggested that the
population dynamics of this species may be somewhat cyclic, which could lead to erroneous
estimates of population density or viability (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The species was extirpated from the Cumberland by impoundment in the 1930s and more recently
other locations by habitat degradation (Page and Near 2007, NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 827

 Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists the longhead darter as critically imperiled in Kentucky, and New York,
imperiled in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia, and reports that it is extirpated from
Ohio. The longhead darter is state-listed as endangered in KY, threatened in TN, NY, and of special
concern in NC. Although the precise degree of decline is unknown, the extent of occurrence, total area
of occupancy, number of subpopulations, and population size have all declined over the long term
(Page 1978, Trautman 1981, Burr and Warren 1986, NatureServe 2008). This species is likely
extirpated from the Cumberland and Kentucky Rivers in Kentucky (Burr and Warren 1986). It has
also been extirpated from several rivers and streams in Tennessee, including the Cumberland
River (Page 1978, Etnier and Starnes 1993). Jelks et al. (2008) list the species as vulnerable.
Habitat destruction:
Widespread threats to the longhead darter include increased pollution, turbidity, and siltation
from agriculture, industry, and residential development, and habitat fragmentation and degradation
by the construction of impoundments or channelization of rivers or streams (Page and Near 2007,
NatureServe 2008). The clearing of woody debris from riverbanks or channels to facilitate boat
passage also degrades this species’ habitat (NatureServe 2008).
The degradation of riparian and aquatic habitat by livestock poses a threat in Kentucky, Tennessee,
New York, and Pennsylvania (NatureServe 2008). Populations of the longhead darter in New
York are most threatened by silt deposition from agricultural runoff that smothers eggs and
juvenile life stages (NYSDEC pers. comm. as cited in NatureServe 2009). Acid mine drainage
has degraded significant habitat in the Ohio River Basin (PA Fish and Boat Commission 1997).
More southerly populations are also affected by agriculturally related pollution, but mining
(particularly coal mining) is an unparalleled threat to aquatic species in the areas where it occurs
(West Virginia), even more so since the advent of mountaintop removal (MTR) (NatureServe
2008). Numerous populations in the southern portion of this species’ range are also isolated by
impoundments, dams, and other barriers to dispersal (NatureServe 2008).
This species is also threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005). Mountaintop
removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause significant downstream pollution. Pollutants
associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota (Palmer et al.
2010). Elevated selenium concentrations downstream of mountaintop removal operations can
cause teratogenic deformities in larval fish (Palmer et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal operations
can extirpate entire orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates, eliminating food sources for fish
(Wood 2009).
Jelks et al. (2008) classify the species as vulnerable based on the present or threatened
destruction, modificaton, or reduction in habitat or range.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the longhead darter from the variety of threats it
currently faces. Though it is listed as endangered, threatened, or as a species of special
concern in several states, these designations have little meaning in terms of substantial regulatory
protection for the species' habitat. NatureServe (2008) reports that few occurrences are protected
or managed adequately.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 828

 Other factors:
This species’ narrow habitat preference reduces its resilience to habitat loss and degradation,
making the restoration and protection of suitable habitat critical to its persistence (NatureServe
2009).
References:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 1997. Darters of Pennsylvania.
Accessed online August 13, 2009 << http://www.fish.state.pa.us/education/catalog/darters.html>>
Etnier, D. A. 1997. Longhead darter, Percina macrocephala. Page 78 in E. F. Menhinick, and A.
L. Braswell. Endangered, Threatened, and rare fauna of North Carolina. Part IV. A reevaluation of
the freshwater fishes. Occasional papers of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural
Sciences and the North Carolina Biological Survey 11.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. 681 pp.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 1079 pp.
NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 11, 2009).
Page, L. M. 1978. Redescription, distribution, variation and life history notes on PERCINA
MACROCEPHALA (Percidae). Copeia 1978: 655-664.
Page, L. M. 1983. Handbook of Darters. T. F. H. Pub., Inc., Neptune City, New Jersey.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 829

 Scientific Name:
Percina nasuta
Common Name:
Longnose Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The longnose darter is sporadically distributed in the St. Francis, White, Arkansas, and Ouachita
river drainages in the Ozark and Ouachita uplands of southern Missouri, northern Arkansas, and
eastern Oklahoma (Page and Burr 1991). In Arkansas, it occurs in the Ouachita, Arkansas, Little
Red, and White river systems, and in Frog Bayou/Clear Creek, Mulberry River, War Eagle Creek,
Big Piney Creek, Illinois Bayou Drainage, Caddo River, and South Fourche la Fare River (Robison
1992a and 1992b). It occurs in Lee Creek in Arkansas and Oklahoma. In Missouri, it occurs in
the St. Francis River.
Habitat:
This fish occurs in clear, small to medium rivers. During spring it occurs iin gravel and rubble
riffles, but during fall moves to slower quieter waters over sand and silt. It has also been reported
from an impoundment (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Prior to 1980 there were 21 collection sites for this species (Lee et al. 1980). In Arkansas, this
species was documented at 39 sites and 21-100 estimated extant occurrences, but many of these
records have been re-identified as a new species, decreasing the formerly widespread Arkansas
range. In Oklahoma, 30 collection sites were recorded from 1939-1989, with an estimated 0-5
extant occurrences being in good condition (C. Vaughn, pers. comm., 1997 cited in NatureServe
2008), but Lee's Creek may be the only remaining population in Oklahoma (Wagner et al. 1984).
In Missouri this species was last collected in 1987 when one individual was detected in the St.
Francis River. This fish is extirpated in the White River in Missouri, and may also be extirpated in
the St. Francis (J. Sternburg, pers. comm., 1997 cited in NatureServe 2008).
Total population size is unknown and is difficult to determine. This fish is uncommon (Page and
Burr 1991), occurs in small localized populations, and is not abundant at any locality (Wagner et
al. 1984, Robison 1992a and 1992b).
Population Trends:
The longnose darter has declined by up to 30 percent in the short-term and has experienced a
long-term decline of 25-75 percent (NatureServe 2008). Buchanan (1984) noted that numbers
have been drastically reduced and a number of populations have been extirpated over the past 22
years. In Oklahoma, this fish is extirpated from the Poteau River System and there is only one
remaining population in the state (Robison 1992b). In Missouri, this species may be extirpated in
the St. Francis, White, and Poteau river systems (Stewart 1993). It has not been detected in the
White River watershed since the mid-1950’s and was last seen in the St. Francis in 1987. The
Missouri Dept. of Conservation (2010) states that the longnose darter is extremely rare and
vulnerable to extirpation from the state. The longnose darter is believed to be stable in Arkansas,
but may be extirpated in the Little Missouri River. In surveys in the early 1990’s it was detected in
all previously occupied river systems except for the Little Missouri; it might still be extant in the

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 830

 Little Missouri but at reduced numbers (Robison 1992a).
Status:
The longnose darter is critically imperiled in Missouri and Oklahoma and imperiled in Arkansas
(NatureServe 2008). This rare fish has been exirpated from entire river systems and is vulnerable
to further extirpations. It is ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al.
2008) due to habitat loss and degradation. It is isted as endangered by the state of Missouri.
Habitat destruction:
Impoundment is a primary threat to the longnose darter. The construction of reservoirs has
extirpated or reduced populations of this species (Buchanan 1984, Wagner et al. 1984, Robison
1992a and 1992b, Stewart 1993). This species was likely extirpated from the Missouri portion of
the White River watershed by Table Rock Dam. The range of the longnose darter has also been
negatively impacted by the inundations of Beaver Lake (Missouri Dept. of Conservation 2010).
Water quality changes resulting from existing impoundments and a proposed impoundment on
Lee Creek are ongoing threats (Stewart 1993). This fish is also threatened by gravel and sand
mining, and channel modification for flood control (Stewart 1993). The Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission (2005) lists threats to this species as channel alteration, dams, sedimentation,
grazing, resource extraction, and road construction. The Missouri Dept. of Conservation (2010)
reports that fish in the White River watershed are threatened by urbanization, livestock grazing,
gravel mining, and reservoir operations. Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss as a threat to this
species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The longnose darter is not protected by any existing regulatory mechanisms. It is listed as
endangered by the state of Missouri, and as a Species of Special Concern in Arkansas, but these
designations do not confer substantial regulatory protection to the species or its habitat. It occurs
on Ouachita National Forest which conveys some level of protection, but leaves the species
vulnerable to impacts from logging and recreation.
Other factors:
The longnose darter is threatened by pollution including pesticides, agricultural runoff, municipal
and industrial discharges, and sedimentation (Buchanan 1984, Wagner et al. 1984, Robison 1992a,
1992b, Stewart 1993). The Missouri Dept. of Conservation (2010) reports that fish in the Whiter
River watershed are threatened by point and non-point source pollution, particularly from
municipal sewage spills and poultry operations. This fish is threatened by past and ongoing metal
contamination from the Big River Mine Tailings Superfund Site (FWS 2009).
This species is vulnerable to extirpation due to low population sizes and low densities, and is
susceptible to stochastic events such as drought (Wagner et al. 1984, Robison 1992a, 1992b).
References:
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Aquatic Fish
Report Species Account. Accessed March 10, 2010 at:
http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/09b_fish.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 831

 Buchanan, T. M. 1984. Status of the longnose darter, PERCINA NASUTA (Bailey), in Arkansas.
Unpublished report submitted to Arkansas Heritage Commission. 29 pp.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Missouri Department of Conservation. 2010. White River Watershed Inventory and Assessment,
Biotic Communities. Accessed March 10, 2010 at:
http://www.mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/documents/whriver/hardcopy/390bctxt.pdf
Page, L. M. 1983. Handbook of Darters. T. F. H. Pub., Inc., Neptune City, New Jersey. 271 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Robison, H. W. 1992. Distribution and status of the longnose darter, PERCINA NASUTA
(Bailey), in the Ozark National Forest, Arkansas. Final Report submitted to U.S. Forest Service,
Ozark National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas. 58 pp.
Robison, H. W. 1992. Distribution and status of the Ouachita River form of the longnose darter
in the Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas. Final Report submitted to U.S. Forest Service,
Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas. 58 pp.
Sternburg, J. Wildlife Ecologist, Missouri Natural Heritage Program, Missouri Department of
Conservation, 2901 West Truman Blvd., P. O. Box 180, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180. 573751-4115.
Stewart, J. 1993. Status review of longnose darter, PERCINA NASUTA. Jackson Field Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS. Unpublished. 4 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. Final Phase I Damage Assessement Plan for
Southeast Missouri Lead Mining District: Big River Mine Tailings Superfund Site, St. Francois
County and Viburnum Trend Sites, Reynolds, Crawford, Washington, and Iron Counties. January
2009.
Vaughn, C. C. Aquatic Zoologist. Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory, Oklahoma Biological
Survey, 111 East Chesapeake Street, University of Oklahoma, Norman OK 73019-0575.
(405)325-1985.
Wagner, B. A., A. A. Echelle, and O. E. Maughan. 1984. Status of three Oklahoma fishes
(NOTROPIS PERPALLIDUS, NOTURUS PLACIDUS, PERCINA NASUTA). Submitted to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region II, Albuquerque, NM. 22+ pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 832

 Scientific Name:
Percina sipsi
Common Name:
Bankhead Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Threatened
Range:
The bankhead darter has a highly restricted distribution limited to four streams in the Sipsey Fork
of the Black Warrior River, including Borden, Brushy and Caney Creeks, and the Sipsey Fork
itself (Mettee et al. 1996, Boschung and Mayden 2004, Kuhajda 2004, Williams et al. 2007,
NatureServe et al. 2008).
Habitat:
The bankhead darter occurs in large upland streams with moderate current and rocky substrates
and is frequently associated with woody debris (Kuhajda 2004, Boschung and Mayden 2004,
Williams et al. 2007).
Populations:
The bankhead darter is limited to four streams, where it is not abundant (Boschung and Mayden
2004, Kuhajda 2004, Williams et al. 2007).
Population Trends:
Jelks et al. (2008) listed the bankhead darter as declining and changed its status from threatened
to endangered. Prior to recent declines, the species lost range to the Lewis Smith Reservoir
(Kuhajda 2004, Williams et al. 2007).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists this fish as critically imperiled, noting that "abundance is low," that its
"limited distribution makes it vulnerable to localized habitat alterations," and that "sedimentation
from poor forestry management practices is a threat." Jelks et al. (2008) lists it as endangered.
Williams et al. (2007) concluded:
"We consider P. sipsi to be highly endangered based on its restricted distribution, rarity within the
occupied range, habitat vulnerability, and absence of downstream habitat for future recovery.
Percina sipsi is extremely vulnerable and needs continuous monitoring and proactive management
actions to prevent extinction."
At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological Diveristy, there was a
strong consensus that the bankhead darter should be listed as endangered.
Habitat destruction:
Jelks et al. (2008) lists the bankhead darter as endangered because of the "present or threatened
destruction, modification, or reduction of a taxon’s habitat or range." The species' range was
curtailed by construction of the Lewis Smith Dam in 1960, which flooded habitat in the Sipsey
Fork (NatureServe 2008). Logging and road construction are both currently threats to the
bankhead darter (Kuhajda 2004). Clearcutting and excessive sedimentation are the main threat to
this species and warrant its listing as endangered (SFC and CBD 2010).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 833

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species is found entirely on the Bankhead National Forest, which provides some level of
protection (Williams et al. 2007), but does not necessarily protect this fish from the impacts of
logging, roadbuilding, and recreation. Williams et al. (2007) describe this species as "extremely
vulnerable" and in need of "continuous monitoring and proactive management actions to prevent
extinction."
Other factors:
Jelks et al. (2008) list the bankhead darter as endangered because of "a narrowly restricted range."
References:
Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Godwin, J. Aquatic Zooloogist. Alabama Natural Heritage Program, Huntington College, Massay
Hall, 1500 East Fairview Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36106-2148. 334-834-4525.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Kuhajda, B. R. 2004. Warrior bridled darter, Percina sp. cf. macrocephala. Pages 200-201 in
Mirarchi, R. E., Garner, J. T., Mettee, M. F., and O'Neil, P. E. (editors). Alabama Wildlife,
Volume 2, Imperiled Aquatic Mollusks and Fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama.
Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin.
Oxmoor House, Birmingham, Alabama. 820 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.
Starnes, W. C. 1995. Taxonomic validation for fish species on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Category 2 species list. 28 pp.
Warren, M. L., Jr., B. M. Burr, S. J. Walsh, H. L. Bart, Jr., R. C. Cashner, D. A. Etnier, B. J.
Freeman, B. R. Kuhajda, R. L. Mayden, H. W. Robison, S. T. Ross, and W. C. Starnes. 2000.
Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern
United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-31.
Williams, J. D., D. A. Neely, S. J. Walsh and N. M. Burkhead. 2007. Three new percid fishes
(Percidae: Percina) from the Mobile Basin drainage of Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.
Zootaxa 1549:1-28.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 834

 Scientific Name:
Percina sp. cf. palmaris
Common Name:
Halloween Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Vulnerable
Range:
The halloween darter is endemic to the Apalachicola River drainage in the Flint River system in
Georgia and the Chattahoochee River system in Alabama and Georgia (Freeman et al. 2008). In
the Flint, it occurs in the mainstem above and below the Fall Line and in at least four tributaries,
including Lazer, Potato, Muckalee, and Ichawaynochaway Creeks (Ibid.) In the Chattahoochee, it
occurs in two disjunt areas: one in the upper watershed in the mainstem of the river, as well as the
Chestatee River and Sautee Creek, and another in the Uchee Creek system in Alabama (Ibid.)
Based on this disjuct distribution, Freeman et al. (2008) hypothesized that the halloween darter
occurred more widely in the Chattahoochee prior to consturction of a number of dams, and
expansion of Atlanta with concurrent impacts on water quality. They also believe it may have
occurred more widely on the Coastal Plain prior to clearing of the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers
of rock shoals and other obstacles to navigation.
Likewise, Johnston and Kuhadja (2002) concluded:
"Distribution significantly fragmented and restricted to four isolated stream reaches in
Apalachicola River drainage. Assuming a continuous presettlement distribution between these
four isolated populations, this species has dissapeared from vast majority of former distribution
primarily due to construction of impoundments."
Habitat:
The halloween darter is found in swift currents over bedrock or course boulder or gravel
substrates, otherwise known as shoal habitats (Marcinek 2003, Freeman et al. 2008)
Populations:
The halloween darter is still abundant in shoals of the upper Flint above the Fall Line, but is less
common and occurs in fewer localities in the lower Flint or in the Chattahoochee system
(Marcinek 2003, Freeman et al. 2008).
Population Trends:
The halloween darter is believed to have been extirpated from a major portion of its range in the
Chattahoochee River because of impoundments and channel modification for navigation
(Johnston and Kuhajda 2002).
Status:
Both Warren et al. (2000) and Jelks et al. (2008) classified the halloween darter as vulnerable.
Johnston and Kudajda (2002) classified it as a species of highest conservation concern. It is
listed as threatened by the state of Georgia. NatureServe (2008) classifies the halloween darter
as critically imperiled in Alabama and imperiled in Georgia. Population fragmentation caused by
dams is considered a primary threat to the species (Johnston and Kuhajda 2002, Freeman et al.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 835

 2008). At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological Diversity,
there was agreement that the halloween darter should be listed as threatened because of
population fragmentation, range loss and severe threats (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
The halloween darter faces numerous threats to its habitat, including water withdrawal, pollution
and sedimentation related to urbanization and other land use (Johnston and Kuhajda 2002,
Freeman et al 2008, SFC and CBD 2010). In particular, the halloween darter is thretened by urban
sprawl from metropolitan Atlanta. Freeman et al. (2008), for example, state:
"Present threats to the persistence of P. crypta primarily consist of effects of urban growth on
stream hydrology and water quality, particularly in the north Georgia mountains and in the vicinity
of the Atlanta Metropolitan area. The Flint River headwaters originate in Atlanta, and population
growth in the upper Flint River system is expected to place increasing demands on the river
system for water supply and waste assimilation. Similarly, population growth in the Blue Ridge
province of North Georgia will affect water availability and quality in the Chattahoochee River
headwaters."
In relation to an increased human population and increased demand for water, a series of new
impoundments are proposed for the Atlanta area, which further threaten the holiday darter.
Johnston and Kuhajda (2002) further identified declining habitat quality in the Uchee Creek
system as a serious threat to the species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The halloween darter is considered a threatened by the state of Georgia and a species of highest
conservation concern in Alabama (Freeman et al. 2009). Neither of these designations, however
provide protection for the halloween darter's habitat. No other protections are in place for this
species.
References:
Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Freeman, M.C., B.J. Freeman, N. M. Burkhead, and C. A. Straight. 2008. A new species of
Percina (Perciformes: Percidae) from the Apalachicola River drainage, southeastern United
States. Zootaxa 1963: 25–42
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Johnston, C.E. & Kuhajda, B.R. 2002. Halloween darter Percina sp. In: Mirachi, R.E., Garner,
J.T., Mettee, M.F. & O'Neil, P.E. (Eds.), Alabama Wildlife. Vol. 2. Imperiled Aquatic Mollusks
and Fishes. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp. 201–202.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 836

 Marcinek, P.A. 2003. Variation of fish assemblages and species abundances in the upper Flint
River shoals, Georgia.
Master of Science thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 75 pp.
NatureServe. Unpublished. Concept reference for taxa where a reference cannot be recorded due
to insufficient BCD data for conversion; to be used as a placeholder until the correct citation is
identified.
NatureServe. Unpublished. Concept reference for taxa which have not yet been described; to be
used as a placeholder until a citation is available which describes the circumscription of the
taxon.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.
Warren, M. L., Jr., B. M. Burr, S. J. Walsh, H. L. Bart, Jr., R. C. Cashner, D. A. Etnier, B. J.
Freeman, B. R. Kuhajda, R. L. Mayden, H. W. Robison, S. T. Ross, and W. C. Starnes. 2000.
Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern
United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-31.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 837

 Scientific Name:
Percina williamsi
Common Name:
Sickle Darter
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened
Range:
The sickle darter historically occurred in the upper Tennessee River of Tennessee, Virginia and
North Carolina, including the French Broad, Emory, Holston and Clinch Rivers (Page and Near
2007). The species has been extirpated from streams where it was previously collected and is
considered extirpated in North Carolina (Page and Near 2007).
Habitat:
The sickle darter occurs in flowing pools over rocky, sandy, or silty substrates in clear creeks or
small rivers most often in association with woody debris, vegetation or boulders (Page 1978,
Etnier and Starnes 1993, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994, Page and Near 2007). Page and Near
(2007) note that: "as its fusiform shape suggests, it spends most of its time swimming in current
in the water column" with the prominent black stripe on its side "characteristic of darters living
near vegetation in flowing pools."
Populations:
According to Page and Near (2007), the sickle darter "can be observed with regularity in a few
streams, but populations are widely scattered and the species has been extirpated from several
streams where it was collected in the late 1800s and early to mid-1900s." In total, Page and Near
(2007) identify a mere 15 localities where the species has been collected over the past roughly
30 years.
Population Trends:
The species is known to have dissapeared from several streams and is considered extirpated in
North Carolina, indicating species decline (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Page and Near 2007,
NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The sickle darter is considered extirpated in North Carolina, critically imperiled in Virginia, and
imperiled in Tennessee (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994, NatureServe
2008). Jelks et al. (2008) list the species as threatened based on the present or threatened
destruction, modification or reduction of habitat or range. At a meeting of the Southeastern
Fishes Council and Center for Biological Diversity, there was agreement that the sickle darter
should be listed as theatened (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
Page and Near (2007) identify "increased turbidity and siltation resulting from agricultural,
industrial, and municipal development" as likely threats to the sickle darter, noting that these
factors are "the ultimate result of population growth in Homo sapiens." Other threats include
chemical pollution and impoundment, which has isolated many populations (Burkhead and Jenkins
1991, NatureServe 2008). Jelks et al. (2008) identify the sickle darter as threatened based on the
present or threatened destruction, modification or reduction in habitat or range.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 838

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) determines that "few occurrences are appropriately protected and managed,"
identifying a population in the Little River, Tennessee as receiving protection from Great Smoky
National Park. This one population, however, is not sufficient to ensure the continued existence of
the species. The species is listed as threatened by the state of Tennessee, but this designation does
not provide any protection for the species' habitat.
Other factors:
The sickle darter is restricted to a small number of isolated locations in the upper Tennessee River
and is thus highly vulnerable to stochastic genetic and environmental events. Water pollution also
threatens this species (Page and Near 2007).
References:
Burkhead, N. M., and R. E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pages 321-409 in K. Terwilliger
(coordinator). Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. McDonald and
Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Etnier, D. A., and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee. xiv + 681 pp.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, Maryland. xxiii + 1079 pp.
Menhinick, E. F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. 227 pp.
Page, L. M., and T. J. Near. 2007. A new darter from the upper Tennessee River drainage related
to Percina macrocephala (Percidae: Etheostomatinae). Copeia 2007:605-613.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 839

 Scientific Name:
Phaeophyscia leana
Common Name:
Lea's Bog Lichen
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Lea’s bog lichen is a rare lichen found only in floodplains of the Ohio River Valley. It is found in
Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee, and was once also present in Ohio (NatureServe
2008). It is currently known in Gallatin, Massac, Pope, and White Counties in Illinois, Posey
County in Indiana, and Ballard and Livingston Counties in Kentucky (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This lichen is epiphytic, growing below the spring high-water mark on the bark of several species
of trees, including the eastern cottonwood, Populus deltoides, the bald cypress, Taxodium
distichum, and species in the genera Acer, Carya, Liquidambar, and Ulmus in bottomland or
floodplain forests, and along rivers or oxbow lakes (NatureServe 2008, Skorepa 1984). It
reportedly grows only on the trunks of trees inundated by seasonal flooding (Skorepa 1984).
Ecology:
Reproduction is primarily asexual, and it is therefore unknown how many genetically distinct
populations exist.
Populations:
There are eight sizable known populations of this species, each comprised of thousands of thalli,
though the number of genetically distinct individuals in these populations is not known
(NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Long-term population trends are not known, but short-term fluctuations are reported (NatureServe
2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks Lea's bog lichen as critically imperiled in Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, and
Tennessee. Its status is under review in Pennsylvania. This species is state-listed as threatened in
Illinois.
Habitat destruction:
Populations of this species are declining because of heavy river traffic, flooding, and bank erosion
that kills the trees that provide substrate for the Lea’s bog lichen. The most significant threats
include irregular major flooding and wakes left by river traffic, both of which erode riverbank
habitat and kill the trees that host P. leana (Wilhelm and Masters 1994). These irregular floods
are a result of alterations in hydrologic flow caused by dams, locks, or other impoundments, and
are exacerbated by land clearing or wetland drainage that removes natural flood control
mechanisms (Gillespie and Methven 2002). Many backwater sloughs and oxbow lakes that
provide suitable habitat for P. leana’s host trees have been drained or are plagued by
eutrophication or sedimentation; silt and sediment may coat tree surfaces or smother P. leana
(Gillespie and Methven 2002). Reduced water flow may also compromise populations of P. leana:

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 840

 periodic flooding must be adequate to suppress shrubby undergrowth that would otherwise
preclude P. leana’s growth on the low parts of tree trunks (Wilhelm and Masters 1994). This
species has been extirpated from Ohio, where it was historically present in several watersheds,
although no sources report the specific cause of extirpation (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Lea’s bog lichen; it is listed as
threatened only in Illinois, a designation that nonetheless affords it no significant regulatory
protection.
Other factors:
This lichen is threatened by sedimentation and eutrophication from flooding, impoundment, and
other sources (Gillespie and Methven 2002).
References:
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 11, 2009).
Skorepa, A.C. 1984. The rediscovery of Phaeophyscia leana. The Bryologist 87: 257.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 841

 Scientific Name:
Phoxinus saylori
Common Name:
Laurel Dace
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered
Range:
The Laurel dace is only known from six streams on the Walden Ridge portion of the Cumberland
Plateau in Tennessee, including Soddy, Horn Branch of Rock, Cupp, Youngs, Moccasin and
Bumbee Creeks (Skelton 2001). It is extirpated from the Laurel Branch of Rock Creek with
remaining populations extremely localized, occupying reaches of 0.3 to 8 km in length (Skelton
2001, Strange and Skelton 2005).
Habitat:
The Laurel dace occurs on cobble, rubble or boulder substrates in pools or slow runs associated
with undercut banks or beneath boulders in small, cool (less than 26 degrees C), headwater
streams surrounded by dense riparian vegetation (Skelton 2001).
Populations:
The laurel dace is limited to six discrete stream populations. Recent surveys of streams occupied
by the laurel dace suggest serious cause for concern in three of the six creeks occupied by the
species. Surveys in 2004 found a single juvenile in the 2.5 km section of Soddy Creek historically
occupied by the species, a single juvenile in an unamed tributarty to Horn Branch, where no fish
were found in the pool historically occupied by the species, and no individuals in Cupp Creek
(Strange and Skelton 2005).
Population Trends:
The laurel dace has apparently experienced dramatic declines in the last 10-30 years in three of
the six streams in which it occurs (Strange and Skelton 2005). In 1995-1996, for example, 19
laurel dace were collected in Cupp Creek, but in 2004, no laurel dace could be found. In both
Soddy and Horn Branch Creeks, only one juvenile was found in each in 2004. By comparison,
Skelton collected 52 laurel dace in 1993-1994 in Soddy Creek, as well as observing a number of
the species in 1996 and 1997, and nearly 2,000 of what are now presumed to be laurel dace were
collected from Horn Branch in 1976 with surveys by Skelton in the 1990s regularly producing 30
to 50 fish (Strange and Skelton 2005).
Status:
Jelks et al. (2008) list the species as endangered, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the
species as a candidate for listing, Tennessee lists it as endangered, and NatureServe (2008) lists it
as critically imperiled. There can be no doubt that the laurel dace is in immediate danger of
extinction. At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological Diversity,
there was agreement that the laurel dace should be listed as theatened (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
The laurel dace is well known to be threatened by logging, road construction, blockage of habitat by
culverts, mining, agriculture, and clearance of riparian vegetation (Skelton 2001, Strange and Skelton
2005, NatureServe 2008). Skelton (2001), for example, states:

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 842

 "Agriculture, mining, and timbering have been widespread on Walden Ridge, and it is likely that
additional populations may have existed before these types of human activities began. Extensive timber
harvesting and some agriculture are ongoing in the vicinity of some P saylori populations. A large area
surrounding the headwaters of Horn Branch of Rock Creek has recently been clearcut, as has an
approximately 200 m stretch adjacent to the type locality. Further cutting is proposed near the type
locality in the next four years (W. Boyd, Bowater Newsprint, pers. comm.). Increased siltation from
these activities is already evident and has the potential of destroying available spawning areas."
Skelton goes on to note that:
"An encouraging note about P saylori is that the species seems to be fairly tolerant of a wide range of
physical conditions. They are apparently tolerant of low pH values (lowest recorded was 5.4 in Horn
Branch) and presumably tolerant of some siltation. Most of the areas adjacent to streams where P saylori
occurs have been clearcut at one time or another and at least some of the populations have survived.
Currently, the individual populations appear to be fairly secure. However, since there are only six known
populations, a single catastrophic event could significantly reduce the species range."
Conclusions about the tolerance of the laurel dace, however, may have been premature, as only one
juvenile laurel dace was found in Horn Branch.
According to Strange and Skelton (2005) siltation is a threat to all six of the populations of laurel dace.
They note, for example, that extensive clear-cutting and road construction adjacent to Bumbee Creek
resulted in a heavy sediment load in the stream and that conditions deteriorated between 2002 and 2005.
FWS (2007) further notes that "habitat destruction and modification also stems from existing or
proposed infrastructure development," and specifically identifies existing culverts proposed water lines
and a proposed impoundment in the Soddy Creek watershed as all threatening the laurel dace.
The Laurel dace is also threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining which can fill in streams
entirely and can cause significant downstream pollution. Pollutants associated with mine runoff can
disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota (Palmer et al. 2010). Elevated selenium concentrations
downstream of mountaintop removal operations can cause teratogenic deformities in larval fish (Palmer
et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates,
eliminating food sources for fish (Wood 2009).
Consistent with these observations, Jelks et al. (2008) list the dace as endangered because of the present
or threatened destruction, modification, or reduction of habitat or range.
Disease or predation:
FWS (2007) cited an observation by Skelton that declines of laurel dace in Horn Branch appeared
to be correlated with an increase of green sunfish in the creek and that perhaps these predatory fish
are a threat to the species in this and other creeks.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
FWS (2007) concluded that there were no effective regulations for protecting the laurel dace from
logging on the private lands covering most to all of its range. Specifically, they noted that landowners
are exempt from obtaining permits for forestry activities, which "hinders TDEC-WPC's [Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control] ability to target
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 843

 forest operations from random inspections to ensure that BMPs are effective at preventing point source
pollution from occurring due to forestry activities" They further note that "adherence to BMPs is strictly
voluntary" and that "the only opportunity for enforcement would be after a violation has occurred."
FWS (2007) further notes that the laurel dace's listing as endangered under the Tennessee Nongame and
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974 (Tennessee Code Annotated §§
70-8-101-112) is "inadequate for the protection of" laurel dace because "it only requires parties to
consider alternatives before knowingly destroying the habitat of it or other species listed by the State of
Tennessee as threatened or endangered."
Other factors:
Jelks et al. (2008) list the laurel dace as endangered in part because it is limited to a narrow,
restricted range. FWS (2007) concludes that "the laurel dace’s limited geographic range and
apparent small population size in half of the streams it inhabits leaves the species extremely
vulnerable to localized extinctions from intentional or accidental toxic chemical spills or other
stochastic disturbances and to decreased fitness from reduced genetic diversity," noting that a
report of a fish kill in Cupp Creek by a local landowner provides evidence of the possibility for
such disturbances. They also note that the restricted range of the species makes it "more likely to
suffer loss of genetic diversity due to genetic drift, potentially increasing their susceptibility to
inbreeding depression and decreasing their ability to adapt to environmental changes."
References:
FWS 2007. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form for laurel dace. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms_pdf/r4/E0AR_V01.pdf
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.
Skelton, C. E. 1997. Status survey of the Laurel Dace (Phoxinus sp.) on Walden Ridge and
adjacent areas in east Tennessee. Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North
Carolina.
Skelton, C. E. 2001. New dace of the genus Phoxinus (Cyprinidae: Cypriniformes) from the
Skelton goes on to note that: Tennessee River drainage, Tennessee. Copeia 2001:118-128.
Strange, R. M. and C. E. Skelton. 2005. Status, distribution, and conservation genetics of the laurel dace
(Phoxinus saylori). Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville Field Office,
September 28, 2005. 22 pp.
Warren, M. L., Jr., B. M. Burr, S. J. Walsh, H. L. Bart, Jr., R. C. Cashner, D. A. Etnier, B. J.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 844

 Freeman, B. R. Kuhajda, R. L. Mayden, H. W. Robison, S. T. Ross, and W. C. Starnes. 2000.
Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern
United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-31.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 845

 Scientific Name:
Physostegia correllii
Common Name:
Correll's False Dragon-head
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This plant was formerly widespread throughout the Gulf Coast but is now declining. Correll's false
dragon-head is a wetland perennial now known only from southern Louisiana and Texas;
populations may still exist in northern Mexico (Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Sonora) but have not
been recently confirmed (Center for Plant Conservation 2009, Irving 1980). The single
remaining occurrence in Texas is found in Travis County (Singhurst 2001 as cited in Center for
Plant Conservation 2009), and populations may still be found in Louisiana's Cameron, St. Charles,
St. James, and St. Tammany Counties, though most of these occurrences have not been confirmed
in the past decade (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The false dragon-head is found in wet, silty clay loams along streamsides, creekbeds, irrigation
channels and drainage ditches. This plant may establish in anthropogenic habitats if conditions are
suitable (NatureServe 2008). It is often found in association with Johnson grass (Sorghum spp.),
spike rush (Eleocharis spp.), alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), and cottonwood
(Populus spp.) (Irving 1980).
Ecology:
This plant is perennial, self-compatible, and often reproduces via rhizomes; populations may thus
exhibit low genetic diversity. It is primarily bee-pollinated,and flowers in June and July (Center
for Plant Conservation 2009).
Populations:
Fewer than 5 occurrences of this species have been confirmed in the past decade, and several
historical occurrences have not been recently confirmed. Total population size is not known but is
likely quite small (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend has not been formally reported for this species, but it appears to be in serious decline
(NatureServe 2008, Center for Plant Conservation 2009).
Status:
This plant was formerly widespread, but its range appears to be contracting; most historical
occurrences have not been recently confirmed. NatureServe (2008) ranks the Correll's false
dragonhead as critically imperiled in Louisiana and imperiled in Texas.
Habitat destruction:
The wetland habitat preferred by P. correllii is threatened mainly by logging and/or conversion to
silvicultural plantations; because this species often establishes in human-made habitats (drainage
ditches, irrigation channels) it is exposed to frequent disturbance (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 846

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Correll's false dragon-head or its
habitat.
References:
Cantino, P.D. 1982. A monograph of the genus Physostegia (Labiatae). Contributions Gray
Herbarium 211: 1-105.
Center for Plant Conservation. Species profile for Physostegia correllii. Accessed online
January 19, 2010
<<http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/collection/cpc_viewprofile.asp?CPCNum=3448>>
Irving, R.S. 1980. Status Report [on Physostegia correllii]. Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
November 9, 2009)

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 847

 Scientific Name:
Plagiochila caduciloba
Common Name:
Gorge Leafy Liverwort
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The gorge leafy liverwort is endemic to a narrow range in the southern Appalachians in Tennessee,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Kentucky. Natural heritage data show records of
this species in Burke, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Transylvania, and Yancey
Counties, North Carolina (Boyer 1991), Rabun County, Georgia, and Oconee and Pickens
Counties, South Carolina (NatureServe 2008). This species is most common in the core of its
range, the Escarpment region of North Carolina (Boyer 1991, as updated 1992 and 1996).
Habitat:
The liverwort is most frequently found on vertical rock walls or on the underside of projecting
ledges in damp areas near waterfalls, in sheltered sites within rocky gorges, ravines, or ridges
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). It prefers shade and high humidity, and no direct sunlight. It is
found near the spray zone, but not within it, and preferred rock substrate is not calcareous (Boyer
1991). Soils are rocky and acidic within this habitat, and forest canopy is dense and often
dominated by birch (e.g., Betula lenta, Betula alleghaniensis), tulip (Liriodendron tulipifera),
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), red maple (Acer rubrum), and red oak (Quercus rubra), with a welldeveloped shrub layer and sparse herb layer. The liverwort occurs at elevations up to 1500 m
(Hicks and Amoroso 1996).
Ecology:
The liverwort requires undisturbed, shaded, humid habitat (NatureServe 2008). It is largely
maintained and propagated by asexual reproduction.
Populations:
This liverwort is currently known from approximately 21 occurrences-- one in Kentucky, two in
Tennessee, four in South Carolina, and 13 in North Carolina (Hicks and Amoroso 1996). Global
population size is not known.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is in decline and has been extirpated from some
historical sites.
Status:
This liverwort is endemic to a narrow range within which it is known from relatively few
occurrences and reportedly in decline. NatureServe (2008) ranks the gorge leafy liverwort as
critically imperiled in Georgia and South Carolina and imperiled in North Carolina and Tennessee.
Habitat destruction:
The liverwort's habitat is threatened primarily by silvicultural management: as an ecological
specialist, this species is greatly affected by changes to its habitat (Boyer 1991, updated 1992,
1996, NatureServe 2008). Some individuals or populations may be destroyed by recreational
trampling (Hicks and Amoroso 1996).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 848

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Some populations of this species are located in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, where they
are protected from timber harvest but vulnerable to recreational impacts (Hicks and Amoroso
1996). Several populations occur on National Forest lands, where they are ostensibly protected but
remain vulnerable to timber harvest activities (Boyer 1991). No existing regulatory mechanisms
adequately protect this species or its habitat; though it is listed as a species of special concern in
Georgia and as a sensitive species on the Nantahala National Forest, these designations offer it no
substantial protections.
References:
Boyer, M. 1991. PLAGIOCHILA CADUCILOBA Blomquist. A liverwort. Unpublished report
for the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program. Updated 13 February 1991 and 20
November 1996. 5 pp.
Hicks, M.L. and J.L. Amoroso. 1996. Broyphyte status survey: PLAGIOCHILA CADUCILOBA
Blomquist: Brief report recommending 3C status. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and
Endangered Species Field Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina.
Revised 1997. 6 pp. and addenda.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 3, 2009.
Schafale, M., and A. Weakley. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina: third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh.
Stotler, R. and B. Crandall-Stotler. 1977. A checklist of liverworts and hornworts of North
America. The Bryologist. 76:405-428.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 849

 Scientific Name:
Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii
Common Name:
Sharp's Leafy Liverwort
G Rank:
T3
Range:
Sharp's leafy liverwort is endemic to the southern Appalachian region in North Carolina,
Tennessee, and South Carolina's escarpment region (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This liverwort forms dense mats on boulders and rock outcroppings in the escarpment gorges of
the Whitewater and Chattooga Rivers, and may occur at lower abundance at other, less suitable
sites (Hicks 1996).
Populations:
This liverwort is known from 42 historical sites, only ten of which are extant. Of the ten extant
occurrences, there are two in Tennessee, four in North Carolina, one in Georgia, two in gorges on
the state boundary between the Carolinas, and one in a gorge that forms the state boundary
between South Carolina and Georgia (Hicks 1996).
Population Trends:
This liverwort is extant at only 10 of 42 historical sites, representing a decline of nearly 75
percent. There are robust occurrences at some undisturbed sites. This liverwort has been reported
from the spruce-fir zone of the Appalachians but has not been located there, which could be due to
it never having been there or to the dramatic changes in that habitat due to adelgid infestation
(Hicks 1996).
Status:
The liverwort is nearly restricted to deep, dense forests of the southern Appalachians. It has not
been ranked by NatureServe.
Habitat destruction:
This liverwort has disappeared from three-quarters of its historic locations, though no specific
causes are cited. Any changes in the streams in the area of Plagiochila sharpii distribution would
threaten this plant's habitat, including logging, clear cutting and roadbuilding. Impoundment is also
a potential threat (Hicks 1996). If this species occurs in the spruce-fir zone where it has been
reported but not confirmed, that habitat is widely threatened by adelgid infestation (Hicks 1996).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The majority of the occurrences of Plagiochila sharpii are in the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park, where they are protected from development but vulnerable to recreational impacts.
Plagiochila sharpii also occurs in Nantahalla National Forest and in the Ellicott Rock Wilderness
which are protected from commercial development, but not protected from clearcutting or road
building (Hicks 1996).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 850

 References:
Hicks, M.L. and J.L. Amoroso. 1996. Broyphyte status survey: PLAGIOCHILA SHARPII
Blomquist. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and Endangered Species Field Office, US
Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina. Revised 1997. 10 pp. and addenda.
Stotler, R. and B. Crandall-Stotler. 1977. A checklist of liverworts and hornworts of North
America. The Bryologist. 76:405-428.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 851

 Scientific Name:
Planorbella magnifica
Common Name:
Magnificent Rams-horn
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of the Magnificent Rams-horn consists of less than 100 square km in one to two lakes
about 15 miles apart in the Lower Cape Fear River basin in Brunswick and New Hanover counties
in North Carolina (Burch 1989, LeGrand et al. 2006).
Habitat:
This species' habitat is in two old human-made lakes where it inhabits sheltered areas with a
diverse assemblage of aquatic plants (Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks
1990). This snail has been detected on the stems and undersides of the floating leaves of
Spatterdock (Niiphar liiteum) and Fragrant Waterlily (Nymphaea odorata) at a depth of
approximately one meter with organic substrate. Both lakes were created early in the last century
as a water source for rice agriculture (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Historically known from two sites, Ortan Pond and Greenfield Lake, this snail is now extant only
in Ortan Pond (Fuller 1977, Adams and Gerberich 1988, Dillon et al. 2006, LeGrand et al. 2006).
Total population size is crudely estimated at 50 - 2500 individuals.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this snail is rapidly declining (decline of 30-50 percent) in the
short-term and has experienced a long-term decline of 50 percent. This species has been
extirpated at one of two historical locations (Adams and Gerberich 1988). It has not been
reported in the wild since several hurricanes hit its remaining habitat in the late 1990s (Dillon et
al. 2006).
Status:
This species was considered to be possibly extinct until it was redetected in 1986. It is critically
imperiled (G1S1, NatureServe 2008). It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
The Magnificent Rams-horn was extirpated from Greenfield Lake due to water quality detoriation
resulting primarily from development. The watershed is "almost totally developed" and undergoes
intensive management to control nuisance algae including algicide applications and drawdown
(NatureServe 2008). This species' remaining site is privately owned and also potentially
threatened by development from the expanding city of Wilmington. The lands surrounding the
pond are currently managed for timber and wildlife, making sedimentation from logging a
potential threat. This species is threatened by water quality degradation resulting from off-site
impacts within the rapidly developing watershed (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect this species, which now occurs only in a
single pond on private land.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 852

 Other factors:
The Magnificent Rams-horn is threatened by stochastic weather events, such as hurricanes, which
are expected to increase in frequency and intensity as the result of global climate change (Field et
al. 2006). This species has not been detected since its habitat was hit by several hurricanes during
the late 1990s (Dillon et al. 2006).
References:
Adams, W.F. and A.G. Gerberich. 1988. Rediscovery of Planorbella magnivica (Pilsbry) in
southeastern North Carolina. The Nautilus, 102(3): 125-126.
Albrecht, C., K. Kuhn, and B. Streit. 2007. A molecular phylogeny of Planorboidea (Gastropoda,
Pulmonata): insights from enhanced taxon sampling. Zoologica Scripta, 36: 27-39.
Bartsch, P. 1908. Notes on the fresh-water mollusk (Planorbis magnificus) and descriptions of
two new forms of the same genus from the southern states. Proceedings of the United States
National Museum, 33: 697-700.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Dillon, R.T., Jr., B.T. Watson, and T.W. Stewart. 2006. The freshwater gastropods of North
Carolina. Created 26 August 2003 by Rob Dillon, College of Charleston, Charleston, South
Carolina. Available online: http://www.cofc.edu/~fwgna/FWGNC/index.html. Last updated
September 2007.
Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running and
M.J. Scott. 2007: North America. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E.
Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 617-652.
http://www.ipccinfo.com/wg2report_north_america.php
Fuller, S.L.H. 1977. Freshwater and terrestrial mollusks. Pages 143-194 in J. E. Cooper, S. S.
Robinson, and J. B. Funderburg (eds.). Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North
Carolina. North Carolina State Museaum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (W.F. Adams, J.M. Alderman,
R.G. Biggins, A.G. Gerberich, E.P. Kefverl, H.J. Porter, and S.S. van Davender eds.). 1990. A
report on the conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 853

 Scientific Name:
Plethobasus cyphyus
Common Name:
Sheepnose
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The sheepnose is a freshwater mussel species endemic to the southeastern and midwestern United
States. It is present in Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Existing populations are known from 26 streams in the aforementioned states: the Mississippi,
Kankakee, Ohio, and Wabash Rivers in Illinois (Sietman et al. 2001), the Ohio, Wabash,
Tippecanoe, and Eel Rivers in Indiana, the Mississippi River in Iowa (Fisher 2006), the Ohio,
Licking, Kentucky, Green, and Cumberland Rivers in Kentucky, the Mississippi and St. Croix
Rivers in Minnesota, the Big Sunflower River in Mississippi (only in the Yazoo drainage, Jones et
al. 2005), the Mississippi, Meramec, Bourbeuse, Osage Fork, and Gasconade Rivers in Missouri
(commonly found only in the Meramec River, Oesch 1995), the Ohio and Muskingum Rivers in
Ohio, the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania, the Tennessee, Holston, Clinch, and Powell Rivers in
Tennessee, the Clinch and Powell Rivers in Virginia, the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers in West
Virginia, and in the Mississippi, St. Croix, Chippewa, Flambeau, and Wisconsin Rivers in
Wisconsin (Zeto et al. 1987, USFWS 2003, Cummings and Berlocher 1990, Butler 2003,
Cochran and Layzer 1993). In Alabama, this species remains only in the tailwaters of the
Guntersville and Wilson Dams (Williams et al. 2008).
The sheepnose has been extirpated from much of its former range – approximately 2/3 of the
streams in which it was once reported no longer host this species. Though it is still widely
distributed, remaining populations are small and isolated (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, Neves
1991).
Habitat:
Though it may also inhabit medium-sized rivers, the sheepnose is generally considered a largeriver species (NatureServe 2008). It is most often reported from deep waters (greater than 2 m)
and seems to be tolerant of a range of currents and substrate types (Gordon and Layzer 1989). It
may also be adaptable to reservoir conditions, as it has been found in the upper Chickamauga
Reservoir (Ahlstedt 1989).
Ecology:
This species is a short-term brooder, and known glochidial host species include the sauger,
Stizostedion canadense and the central stoneroller, Campostoma anomalum (Surber 1913, Wilson
1916, Watters et al. 2005). While juveniles are parasitic, adults are filter-feeders, primarily
consuming detritus from the water column.
Populations:
The sheepnose is known to be extant in 26 streams, and total population size is thought to be at
least 2500 individuals. This mussel occurs at very low abundance, and very rarely are more than a
few individuals found at a particular site (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 854

 Population Trends:
The sheepnose has experienced a long-term decline of up to 75 percent, and has also undergone
rapid short-term decline of up to 70 percent. NatureServe (2008) states: "The sheepnose has been
eliminated from two-thirds of the total number of streams from which it was historically known
(26 streams currently compared to 77 streams historically). This species has also been eliminated
from long reaches of former habitat in hundreds of miles of rivers such as the Illinois and
Cumberland, and from several reaches of the Mississippi and Tennessee Rivers. In addition, the
species is no longer known to occur in the State of Arkansas (see USFWS, 2003; Butler, 2003;
Cummings and Mayer, 1997; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). Sietman (2003) reports it extirpated
from the lower Minnesota River in Minnesota."
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the sheepnose as critically imperiled in Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin,
and imperiled in Missouri and Tennessee. It is listed as endangered in Missouri, Mississippi,
Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and Virginia, and threatened in Pennsylvania. It is a federal candidate. Its
rank is being changed from threatened (Williams et al. 1993) to endangered (2010 draft, in
review) by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
Butler (2002), in a status review of this species, discusses primary threats to its survival across its
range including impoundment, channelization, coal mining, gravel mining, agriculture,
silviculture, and development.
Similarly, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (2005) lists threats to this
species’ habitat as dredging, gravel and sand quarrying, impoundments, channelization,
urbanization, and agriculture.
This species is also threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005). Mountaintop
removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause significant downstream and groundwater
pollution. Pollutants associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota
(Palmer et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders of aquatic
macroinvertebrates (Wood 2009).
Concerning threats to this species’ habitat, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (2010)
states: “[T]he lock and dam system in the Allegheny and Ohio Rivers, combined with
maintenance/commercial sand and gravel dredging have destroyed Sheepnose habitat, eliminated
habitat continuity and genetically isolated subpopulations occurring in the Allegheny and
Monongahela River systems. Sedimentation from oil and gas developments, forestry and
agricultural practices could have an adverse effect on mussel/host interactions and reduce
Sheepnose recruitment. The Sheepnose produces narrow, red lanceolate packets of glochidia
called conglutinates. These conglutinates resemble fish prey items, specifically worms. Excessive
turbidity associated with increased sedimentation would likely alter host numbers or behavior
(such as, ability of fish to find and consume conglutinates) thereby reducing Sheepnose
recruitment.”
Overutilization:
The sheepnose has been harvested commercially in the past for buttons and jewelry, and though it

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 855

 is not currently a commercially valuable species, it may be inadvertently harvested as by catch or
by inexperienced musselers. An increasingly rare species like the sheepnose may increasingly be
sought by collectors. Although collecting is not thought to represent a significant threat, localized
populations could become impacted and possibly extirpated by overcollecting (Butler 2002).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Butler (2002) states: "Most states with extant sheepnose populations prohibit the taking of
mussels for scientific purposes without a State collecting permit. However, enforcement of this
permit requirement is difficult. Furthermore, State regulations do not generally protect mussels
from other threats . . . Existing authorities available to protect riverine ecosystems may not have
been fully utilized, such as the Clean Water Act (CWA), which is administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency and the
Corps. This may have contributed to the general habitat degradation apparent in riverine
ecosystems and loss of populations of aquatic species in the Southeast and Midwest. Although the
sheepnose coexists with other federally listed mussels and fishes throughout a portion of its range,
listing under the Endangered Species Act (Act) would provide additional layers of protection.
Federal permits would be required to take the species, and Federal agencies would be required to
consult with the Service when
activities they fund, authorize, or carry out may adversely affect the species."
Other factors:
The sheepnose is threatened by invasive aquatic species, such as the zebra mussel, Dreissena
polymorpha, the Asian clam, Corbicula fluminea, and the black carp, Mylopharyngodon piceus,
which have caused the local extirpation of many native mussel species in the eastern United States
(Butler 2002, NatureServe 2008). For example, zebra mussels have colonized the Allegheny and
Ohio Rivers, and sheepnose mortality from zebra mussel infestation is expected (Pennsylvania
Fish and Boat Commission 2010).
This mussel is threatened by habitat fragmentation and population isolation. Remaining populations
are small, isolated, and thought to be below effective population size, making them more
susceptible to extirpation by stochastic events and less capable of repopulation following any loss
(Soule 1980, Butler 2002, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2005,
NatureServe 2008). The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (2010) states that anthropogenic
disturbances such as acute or chronic pollution events could destroy the remaining Allegheny
River Sheepnose subpopulation. Small populations are also more vulnerable to inbreeding
depressions and other risks conferred by low genetic diversity.
The sheepnose is threatened by any factor which threatens the host fishes on which it is dependent
for reproduction.
References:
Ahlstedt, S.A. 1989. Update of the Watts Bar nuclear plant preoperational monitoring of the
mussel fauna in upper Chickamauga. Tennessee Valley Authority Tech Report Series
TVA/WR/AB-998/9: 1-26.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 856

 Butler, R.S. 2003. Status assessment report for the sheepnose, Plethobasus cyphus, occurring in
the Mississippi River system (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regions 3, 4, and 5). Unpublished
report prepared by the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team Mollusk Subgroup, Asheville, North
Carolina, December 2002. 88 pp.
Fisher, B.E. 2006. Current status of freshwater mussels (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash River
drainage of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 115(2): 103-109.
Gordon, M.E. and J.B. Layzer. 1989. Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of the Cumberland River
review of life histories and ecological relationships. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
Report, 89(15): 1-99.
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2005. Kentucky's Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed April 1, 2010 at:
http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/Volume%20II/Bivalvia/Bivalvia.htm#453
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of aquatic
mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. Pages 43-85 in G.W.
Benz and D.E. Collins (eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Oesch, R.D. 1995. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Second edition.
Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri. viii + 271 pp.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2010. Rules and Regulations Title 58 Code CH. 75 40
Pa.B. 620. Saturday January 30, 2010. Accessed April 1, 2010 at:
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol39/39-28/1217.html
Sietman, B.E., S.D. Whitney, D.E. Kelner, K.D. Blodgett, and H.L. Dunn. 2001. Post-extirpation
recovery of the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) fauna in the Upper Illinois River.
Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 16(2): 2
Soule, M.E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. Pages
151-169 in M.E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox, editors. Conservation Biology: an Evolutionary
Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Surber, T. 1913. Notes on the natural hosts of fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the United States
Bureau of Fisheries, 32: 101-116.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Butler, R.S., J. Ziewitz, S.K. Alam, and H.N. BlalockHerod). 2003. Agency draft recovery plan for endangered fat threeridge (Amblema neislerii),
shinyrayed pocketbook (Lampsilis subangulata), gulf moccasinshell (Medionidus penicillatus),

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 857

 ochlockonee moccasinshell (Medionidus simpsonianus), oval pigtoe (Pleurobema pyriforme)
and threatened chipola slabshell (Elliptio chipolaensis), and purple bankclimber (Elliptoideus
sloatianus). United States Fish and Widllife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 144 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Candidate and listing priority assignment form:
Plethobasus cyphyus. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island Field Office, Rock Island,
Illinois. 29 pp.
Watters, G.T. 2000. Freshwater mussels and water quality: a review of the effects of hydrologic
and instream habitat alterations. Pages 261-274 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters,
B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings.
Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama & the Mobile
Basin in Georgia, Mississippi & Tennessee. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
908 pp.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.
Zeto, M.A., W.A. Tolin, and J.E. Schmidt. 1987. The freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of the
upper Ohio River, Greenup and Belleville Pools, West Virginia. The Nautilus, 101: 182-185.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 858

 Scientific Name:
Pleurobema athearni
Common Name:
Canoe Creek Pigtoe
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The range of the Canoe Creek Pigtoe covers less than 100 square km in northeast Alabama
(NatureServe 2008). It is known only from the Big Canoe Creek watershed, a western tributary of
the Coosa River (Gangloff et al. 2006).
Habitat:
This mussel uses shoal habitat in a medium to large river tributary, and prefers gravel substrate
(Williams et al. 2008).
Ecology:
The detection of a gravid female in May suggests that this species is a short-term brooder
(Gangloff et al. 2006).
Populations:
The Canoe Creek Pigtoe is restricted to roughly six sites in a single small (less than 500 square
km) watershed in northeast Alabama (NatureServe 2008). Only 19 individuals are known, but only
one-third of these are from recent collections. Four live individuals were found from 20002004, including a gravid female, which indicates that P. athearni remains reproductively viable
(Gangloff et al. 2006).
Population Trends:
The Canoe Creek Pigtoe is declining in the short-term (decline of 10-30 percent), and the longterm trend is unknown as this mussel was first described in 2006 (Gangloff et al.). Of 19 known
individuals, approximately 6 are from recent surveys. Williams et al. (2008) describe this mussel
as extremely rare in Big Canoe Creek, and report that it appears to be extirpated in the Coosa
River proper.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Canoe Creek Pigtoe as critically imperiled in Alabama, stating,
"This recently described species has an extremely limited distribution and range with few recently
collected specimens; and habitat degradation is a continuing threat. Although declining, the
extent of the decline is not known because the species is known from fewer than two dozen
specimens, only one-third of which are recent." This snail is on the Alabama Natural Heritage
Program Tracking List. It is being ranked as endangered by the American Fisheries Society (2010
draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss and modification is the greatest threat to the Canoe Creek Pigtoe (NatureServe
2008). NatureServe (2008) states that there are substantial, imminent, high-level threats to this
species. Mussel habitat in the Coosa River ecosystem is highly reduced and fragmented with only
five tributary sub-basins supporting near-historic levels of mollusk species richness (Gangloff et
al. 2006). NatureServe (2008) states, "Protection of these few remaining fragments is critical to
preserving populations of mussels and other aquatic species in the Mobile Basin." Because this

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 859

 species only occurs in a single, small watershed, it is particularly vulnerable to habitat degradation.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Canoe Creek Pigtoe, and no
occurrences are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). It has no state
protective status.
Other factors:
The Canoe Creek Pigtoe is threatened by any factor which degrades water quality or threatens host
fish populations. It is also inherently vulnerable to extinction because of its small population size
and very restricted range.
References:
Gangloff, M.M., J.D. Williams, and J.W. Feminella. 2006. A new species of freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia: Unionidae), Pleurobema athearni, from the Coosa River drainage of Alabama, USA.
Zootaxa, 1118: 43-56.
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the
Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
908 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 860

 Scientific Name:
Pleurobema oviforme
Common Name:
Tennessee Clubshell
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Tennesee Clubshell once ranged through most of the Cumberlandian region of the Tennessee
River drainage, but is considered extirpated in the Tennessee River system in Mississippi, and
now only occurs in small, scattered, disjunct populations in the Clinch, Duck, Elk, Holston,
Powell, and Paint Rock river systems (Jones et al. 2005, NatureServe 2008). Records for this
species in the Cumberland River system are possibly erroneous (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The Tennessee Clubshell occurs near riffles and shoals on mixed sand-gravel substrate,
sometimes on mud or between slabs of bedrock. This mussel generally does not occur in deeper
water, but was detected in deep water below Watts Bar Dam (Ahlstedt 1989). It occurs directly
above riffles or in flats in small rivers and creeks, and generally prefers at least moderate flow
(NatureServe 2008). Mirarchi et al. (2004) describe this species' habitat as "creeks and small to
large rivers in shoals and riffles with substrata of coarse gravel and sand (Parmalee and Bogan
1998)."
Ecology:
The Tennessee Clubshell is a short-term brooder. Fish hosts include short-tail and common
shiners, central stoneroller, and fantail darter, and possibly other related species of stonerollers
and shiners (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, Weaver et al. 1991, Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Populations:
There are from 21-80 extant populations of the Tennessee Clubshell. This mussel's current
distribution is highly restricted and fragmented in comparison to its historical range. Extant
populations are disjunctly scattered in tributaries of the Tennessee River in the Cumberlandian
Region and are often limited to short sections of headwater streams. Populations of the large
river form of this species which are surviving in low numbers at a few sites below dams likely
consist of relict, non-reproducing inviduals (Ahlstedt 1988). In Mississippi this species appears
to be extirpated. This mussel was once widespread in the Tennessee River system in Alabama, but
is now restricted to the Paint Rock River drainage in Jackson County, and a few tributaries to the
Tennessee River in northern Alabama which are likely nonviable (Mirarchi et al. 2004). In
Tennessee this mussel occurs in undammed portions of the Clinch, Powell, Hiwassee, Duck,
Little Pigeon, Big South Fork Cumberland, Tellico, Elk, and Stone rivers (Parmalee and Bogan
1998). Within and near the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee, this mussel occurs in Citico
Creek in Monroe County and in the Hiwassee River in Polk County (Johnson et al. 2005). In
North Carolina this mussel is still extant in Cherokee and Transylvania counties in the French
Broad, Hiwassee, and Little Tennessee rivers (Bogan 2002, LeGrand et al. 2006). In Kentucky
this mussel sporadically occurs below Cumberland Falls in the lower and upper Cumberland
(Cicerello and Schuster 2003). In Virginia, the Tennessee Clubshell occurs in the upper Clinch
drainage in Copper Creek (Fraley and Ahlstedt 2000, Jones et al. 2001) and in Smyth and Bland
counties in a short section of the upper North Fork Holston River (Jones and Neves 2007).
Overall population size of this mussel is crudely estimated at 10,000-100,000 individuals, but

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 861

 most remaining populations of this species have very low densities. This mussel was "quite
common" historically (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
In the short term, the Tennessee Clubshell has declined rapidly, from 10-50 percent, and this
mussel has experienced a long-term decline of 25-50 percent (NatureServe 2008). The Tennessee
Clubshell has experienced widespread range reduction and extant populations appear to be in
decline. Abundance at extant sites is typically low, and many occurrences are likely not viable.
NatureServe (2008) states, "All extant occurrences are potentially in jeopardy."
Status:
The Tennessee Clubshell is critically imperiled in Alabama and Kentucky, is possibly extirpated in
Mississippi, is imperiled in Tennessee and Virginia, and iis unrankable in North Carolina
(NatureServe 2008). It is considered to be endangered by the Kentucky State Nature Preserves
Commission. It is a federal species of management concern. This species is classified as
Vulnerable by the IUCN. Its rank is being changed from Special Concern (Williams et al. 1993) to
Threatened by the American Fisheries Society (2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
The Tennessee Clubshell is threatened by habitat loss and degradation from factors that reduce
water qualilty and alter flow regime. The species is and has been impacted by channel alteration
and inundation from reservoirs such as the Columbia Dam on the Duck River and the hydropower
dam on the Little Tennessee River. Much of this species former range has been inundated by
reservoirs, and there are existing proposals for the construction of additional dams (NatureServe
2008). The species is also threatened by siltation and contamination from logging, coal mining,
and agricultural run-off, from chemical and organic pollution, and from urban development
(NatureServe 2008). NatureServe (2008) reports that declines continue from pollution, siltation,
and poor land use practices. Mussels in the Little South Fork are threatened by strip mining and
oil extraction (Warren et al. 2001, Warren and Haag 2005). The Kentucky Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife Resources (2005) lists the following conservation issues for this mussel: gravel and
sand removal, impoundments, stream channelization, agriculture, development, coal mining, acid
mine drainage, sewage discharge, oil and gas drilling, pesticides and runoff, siltation, and
silviculture. Mussels in the Clinch and Powell watershed are threatened by coal mining and
agricultural practices (U.S. EPA 2002). This species is also threatened by mountaintop removal
coal mining (EPA 2005). Mountaintop removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause
significant downstream and groundwater pollution. Pollutants associated with mine runoff can
disrupt water and ion balance in aquatic biota (Palmer et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal
operations can extirpate entire orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates (Wood 2009).
Overutilization:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Tennessee Clubshell may be threatened by commercial
clamming in some reservoirs of the Tennessee River.
Disease or predation:
Neves and Odom (1989) cite muskrat predation as a threat to imperiled mussels in the North Fork
of the Holston in Virginia.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Tennessee Clubshell. This species is
listed as Endangered by the state of North Carolina but this designation does not provide the
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 862

 mussel with any substantial regulatory protection. It is a species of Greatest Conservation Need in
Alabama and Kentucky, and a species of Special Concern in Virginia, but these listings do not
protect the species. It has no state status in Tennessee or Mississippi.
A few locations of this species are in protected areas, but there are no sites which are adequately
protected (NatureServe 2008). This mussel occurs on The Nature Conservancy's Pendleton Island
Preserve and in an area administered by the National Park Service in the Little River at Foothills
Parkway bridge. This species occurs in the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee in Citico Creek
and in the Hiwassee River. NatureServe (2008) states: "All populations should receive protection
through acquisition, easement, registry, and working with local, state, and federal government
agencies on issues relating to development, water quality, river designation, etc. Instigation of
watershed management plans for soil conservation and maintenance of water quality essential.
Excellent chance to protect and promote recovery of a species before it goes beyond the point of
saving."
Other factors:
The Tennessee Clubshell is threatened by any factor which alters flow conditions or reduces water
quality. The North Fork of the Holston River has been severely impacted by mercury releases
(Stansberry and Clench 1975, Neves 1991 in Flebbe et al. 1996).
References:
Ahlstedt, S.A. 1986. Cumberlandian mollusk conservation program, activity 1: mussel
distribution surveys. Office of Natural Resources and Economic Development, Tennessee
Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee. 125 pp.
Ahlstedt, S.A. 1989. Update of the Watts Bar nuclear plant preoperational monitoring of the
mussel fauna in upper Chickamunga. Tennessee Valley Authority Tech Report Series
TVA/WR/AB-998/9: 1-26.
Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.
Flebbe, P.A., J. Harrison, G. Kappesser, D. Melgaard, J. Riley, and L.W. Swift Jr. 1996. Status of
Aquatic Resources: part 1 of 2, pp. 15-63. In Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere
(SAMAB). The Southern Appalachian Assessment Aquatics Technical Report. Report 2 of 5.
USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.
Fraley, S.J. and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2000. The recent decline of the native mussels (Unionidae) of
Copper Creek, Russell and Scott Counties, Virginia. Pages 189-195 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I.
Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater
Mollusk Symposia Proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.
Johnson, P.D., C. St. Aubin, and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2005. Freshwater mussel survey results for the
Cherokee and Chattahoochee districts of the United States Forest Service in Tennessee and
Georgia. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama. 32 pp.
Jones, J.W. and R.J. Neves. 2007. Freshwater mussel status: Upper North Fork Holston River,
Virginia. Northeastern Naturalist, 14(3): 471-480.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 863

 Jones, J.W., R.J. Neves, M.A. Patterson, C.R. Good, and A. DiVittorio. 2001. A status survey of
freshwater mussel populations in the upper Clinch River, Tazewell County, Virginia. Banisteria,
17: 20-30.
Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia:
Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.
Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2005. Kentucky's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy. Species Account. Accessed Feb. 5, 2010 at:
http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/Volume%20II/Bivalvia/Bivalvia.htm
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Neves, R. J. and M. C. Odom. 1989. Muskrat predation on endangered freshwater mussels in
Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:934–941.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Clinch and Powell Valley watershed
ecological risk assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC;
EPA/600/R-01/050. Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
<http://www.epa.gov/ncea>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
Warren, M. and W. Haag. 2005. Spatio-temporal patterns of the decline of freshwater mussels in
the Little South Fork Cumberland River, USA. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(6): 13831400.
Warren, M.L., Jr., W.R. Haag, D.B. Henry, and B.M. Burr. 2001. Mussel resource of the Little
South Fork Cumberland River: requiem or recovery? Second Meeting of the Freshwater Mollusk
Conservation Society. Westin Convention Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 11–14 March 2001.
Accessed Jan. 25, 2010 at: http://ellipse.inhs.uiuc.edu/FMCS/Meetings/2001Abstracts.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 864

 Weaver, L.R., G.B. Pardue, and R.J. Neves. 1991. Reproductive biology and fish hosts of the
Tennessee clubshell Pleurobema oviforme (Mollusca: Unionidae) in Virginia. American
Midland Naturalist, 126(1): 82-89.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 865

 Scientific Name:
Pleurobema rubellum
Common Name:
Warrior Pigtoe
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EX - Extinct

Range:
The range of the Warrior Pigtoe covers less than 100 square km in Alabama, Georgia, and
historically, in Tennessee. It is endemic to the Black Warrior, Coosa, and Cahaba River systems
(Parmalee and Bogan 1998), but has been extirpated from much of its historic range (NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
This species is known from headwaters and shoals and is thought to use mixed coarse sand, gravel
and cobble substrates (Conrad 1834, van der Schalie 1938, 1981).
Populations:
There are less than five extant populations of Warrior Pigtoe, and total population size is
unknown, but is very low. This mussel formerly occurred in the Conasauga River in Tennessee, but
is now extinct in the state (Parmalee and Bogan 1998, Simpson 1914). In the Coosa River basin
in Georgia it occurred historically in the Etowah, Conasauga, and Coosawattee River drainages but
has not been recently detected (Williams and Hughes 1998), except for a specimen on the
Coosa/Etowah confluence in Georgia (J. Williams, pers. comm., 2007 cited in NatureServe
2008). In Alabama, it was recently detected at Brushy Creek in Winston County (David Campbell,
University of Alabama pers. comm., February 2004, J. Cordeiro cited in NatureServe 2008).
Williams et al. (2008) report that in Alabama it is only extant in the headwaters of Sipsey Fork in
the Bankhead National Forest and in the North River upstream of Lake Tuscaloosa.
Population Trends:
The Warrior Pigtoe is severely declining in the short-term (decline of more than 70 percent) and
has experienced a very large long-term decline of more than 90 percent (NatureServe 2008). It
was considered to be extinct until two recent detections, one in Alabama and one in Georgia.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Warrior Pigtoe as critically imperiled in Alabama, extirpated in
Tennessee, and unranked in Georgia. It is classified as Extinct by the IUCN. This species merits
immediate protection under the Endangered Species Act. It is ranked as endangered by the
American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Impoundment poses the greatest threat to the Warrior Pigtoe. This species was formerly
considered extinct due to damming. Because only two disjunct populations of this species remain,
any modification of existing habitat could drive the species to extinction. This species' habitat is
threatened by any activity which degrades water quality, increases sedimentation, or threatens host
fish populations (Neves et al. 1997). One of the two recent detections of this mussel is at the
confluence of the Etowah and Coosa Rivers (J. Williams, pers. comm., 2007 cited in NatureServe
2008). Mussels in the Etowah are threatened by impoundments, sedimentation, harmful

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 866

 agricultural practices, urbanization, pollution, and large-scale water withdrawal (Burkhead et al.
1997). Threats to mussels in the Coosa are well known and include impoundment, sedimentation,
eutrophication, and water quality degradation (Alabama Dept. of Conservation and Natural
Resources 2005).
Overutilization:
Because so few individuals of Warrior Pigtoe are still extant, any amount of collection could drive
this species to extinction.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechansims that adequately protect the Warrior Pigtoe and no
occurrences are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). It is a Species of
Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama and Tennessee but these designations do not provide this
mussel with any substantial regulatory protection.
Other factors:
The Warrior Pigtoe is threatened by any factor which degrades water quality. This species is highly
vulnerable to extinction because of drastically reduced range and population size. It is vulnerable
to stochastic genetic and environmental events, and existing remnant populations may not be viable.
References:
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2005. Alabama’s Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Available at: www.outdooralabama.com/outdooralabama/Strategy.pdf . Last accessed June 15, 2009.
Burkhead, N.M., S.J. Walsh, B.J. Freeman, and J.D. Williams. 1997. Status and Restoration of
the Etowah River, an Imperiled Southern Appalachian Ecosystem. In: G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins
(eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern Perspective. Special Publication 1, Southeast
Aquatic Research Institute, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Campbell, David, Department of Biological Sciences, Biodiversity and Systematics, University
of Alabama, 425 Scientific Collections Building, Box 870345, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345
Conrad, T.A. 1834. New freshwater shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations; and a
monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. J. Dobson,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1-76 + 8 plates.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of aquatic
mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. Pages 43-85 in
G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 867

 Simpson, C.T. 1914. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Naides or Pearly Fresh-water Mussels.
Bryant Walker: Detroit, Michigan. 1540 pp.
Van der Schalie, H. 1938. The naiads (fresh-water mussels) of the Cahaba River in northern
Alabama. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Occasional Papers, 392: 1-29.
Van der Schalie, H. 1981. Mollusks in the Alabama River drainage: past and present. Sterkiana,
71: 24-40.
Williams, J.D. and M.H. Hughes. 1998. Freshwater mussels of selected reaches of the main
channel rivers in the Coosa drainage of Georgia. U.S. Geological report to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District, Alabama. 21 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 868

 Scientific Name:
Pleurobema rubrum
Common Name:
Pyramid Pigtoe
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The pyramid pigtoe is a freshwater mussel species native to the southeastern and central United
States. It is currently found in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia, and though it was historically present in these states, is
thought to be extirpated from Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Pennsylvania (NatureServe 2008).
Williams et al. (2008) state: "P. rubrum is widespread in the Mississippi Basin from southwestern
Wisconsin south to Louisiana, and from Ohio River headwaters in western Pennsylvania west to
eastern Kansas. It is known from the Cumberland River drainage downstream of Cumberland Falls,
Kentucky and Tennessee. In the Tennesee River drainage, P. rubrum occurs from headwaters in
southwestern Virginia downstream to the mouth of the Tennessee River, Kentucky" (p. 565).
Habitat:
The pyramid pigtoe is found primarily in medium to large rivers with low to moderate flow
gradients, often in riffles or shoals (NatureServe 2008). It has also been identified below some
dams or reservoirs in lotic environments.
Ecology:
Adults consume organic matter, mainly filter-feeding detritus from the water column. Very little
is known about the reproductive ecology of P. rubrum, but like other freshwater mussel species,
juveniles (larvae) are parasitic on various fish species. Identified host species for P. rubrum
include the spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera), the streamline chub (Erimystax dissimilis), the
scarlet shiner (Lythrurus fasciolaris), and the silver shiner (Notropis photogenis) (Culp et al.
2006).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there 21-80 occurrences of this species, and total population
size is at least 2,500 individuals. This mussel has been extirpated from much of its historical
range, and occurrences are patchily distributed across its still-extensive range. The largest
remaining populations are found in Kentucky’s Green River system, and in Arkansas’ Little
Missouri, Ouachita, White, St. Francis, and Saline Rivers (Harris et al. 1997, Posey 1997,
Ahlstedt and Jenkinson 1991, Harris and Gordon 1987, Anderson 2006).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the pyramid pigtoe has experienced long-term decline of up to
50 percent, and has continued to decline by up to 30 percent in the short-term, stating: "A number
of occurrences and abundance has and continues to decline dramatically. It is likely extripated
from Illinois where it once occurred in the Little Wabash River, as well as the Illinois River (premodern specimens found) (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). Parmalee and Bogan (1998) report it
was known to inhabit the French Broad, Holston, and Little Tennessee Rivers prior to 1960 and in
the Little Tennessee River prior to the closing of the Tellico Dam gates but no longer occurs
there. It is likely extirpated from Indiana (IN NHP, pers. comm., 2009). This species is extirpated

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 869

 in Pennsylvania (Bogan, 1993) where it formerly occurred in the Upper Ohio and Middle
Allegheny-Redbank drainages (Ortmann, 1919). It has likely disappeared from nearly all of the
Ohio River (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003; Watters, 1995). In Alabama, it historically occurred in
the Tennessee River across northern Alabama and in the Paint Rock River and extreme lower
Limestone Creek in Limestone Co. but is extant only in the tailwaters of Guntersville and Wilson
Dams (Williams et al., 2008)."
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the pyramid pigtoe is critically imperiled in Alabama, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Ohio, and Virginia, and Tennessee, imperiled in Arkansas and Louisiana, and
extirpated from Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Pennsylvania. It is not ranked or is under review in
Nebraska and Oklahoma. Williams et al. (2008) state: "Pleurobema rubrum (as P. pyramidatum)
was listed as endangered throughout its range by Stansbery (1970) and threatened throughout its
range by Williams et al. (1993). In Alabama it was listed as extirpated by Stansbery (1976) and
considered imperiled by Lydeard et al. (1999). Garner et al. (2004) designated P. rubrum a
species of highest conservation concern in the state (Alabama)" (p. 566). It is ranked as threatened
by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the pyramid pigtoe is sensitive to habitat perturbation and
inundation and is threatened by channel alteration, impoundment, mining, and urban and industrial
development. In the Clinch River, this species is extirpated below Norris Reservoir due to
impoundment (Ahlstedt 1984), and NatureServe (2008) reports that “plans are underway to
impound 54 miles of the Duck River in Tennessee where P. rubrum occurs.” The Arkansas Fish
and Game Commission (2005) reports that this mussel is threatened by channel alteration and
maintenance, impoundments, and cattle grazing. The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife
Resources (2005) reports that the pyramid pigtoe is threatened by dredging, gravel and sand
quarrying, impoundments, stream channelization, and riparian zone removal for agriculture and
development. This mussel is also specifically threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining
(EPA 2005). Mountaintop removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause significant
downstream and groundwater pollution. Pollutants associated with mine runoff can disrupt water
and ion balance in aquatic biota (Palmer et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal operations can
extirpate entire orders of aquatic macroinvertebrates, disrupting food web dynamics (Wood
2009).
Overutilization:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the pyramid pigtoe is a minor commercial species that is
sometimes harvested for its pink shells, stating, “its occurrence with and resemblance to some
commercial species results in its harvest by clammers.” The Kentucky Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resources (2005) reports that this mussel is threatened by "incidental mortality due to
commercial fishing/musseling (mortality and overharvest)."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that few occurrences are appropriately protected or managed, though
this species does occur in some preserves (the Nature Conservancy’s Pendleton Island Preserve
and some mussel refuges on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers), the protection they afford is
not adequate.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 870

 This species is state-listed as endangered in Ohio, Mississippi, Kentucky, Indiana, and Virginia, but
these designations do not afford it any substantial regulatory protection. No existing regulatory
mechanisms offer sufficient protection to the pyramid pigtoe or its habitat.
Other factors:
Water pollution is a primary threat to the survival of the pyramid pigtoe, which is sensitive to
declines in water quality. This species is threatened by siltation, mine run-off, fly ash and quarry
runoff, sewage effluent, nutrient loading, and herbicides (Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
2005, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2005, NatureServe 2008). It is also
threatened by any factor which threatens populations of its host fishes (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Ahlstedt, S.A. and J.J. Jenkinson. 1991. Distribution and abundance of Potamilus capax and other
freshwater mussels in the St. Francis River system, Arkansas and Missouri, U.S.A. Walkerana,
5(14): 225-261.
Anderson, J.E. (ed.) 2006. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission,
Little Rock, Arkansas. 2028 pp.
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan, Species Account.
Accessed March 31, 2010 at: http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/15mussel.pdf
Culp, J.J., A.C. Shepard, and M.A. McGregor. 2006. New host fish identifications for the
pyramid pigtoe, Pleurobema rubrum. Ellipsaria, 8(3): 5-6.
Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1987. Distribution and status of rare and endangered mussels
(Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of
Science, 41: 49-56.
Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997.
Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in
Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 51: 66-89.
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2005. Kentucky's Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed March 31, 2010 at:
http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/Volume%20II/Bivalvia/Bivalvia.htm#429
Poole, K.E., and J.A. Downing. 2004. Relationship of declining mussel biodiversity to streamreach and watershed characteristics in an agricultural landscape. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 23: 114-125.
Posey II, W.R. 1997. Location, species composition and community estimates for mussel beds
in the St. Francis and Ouachita Rivers, Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, Arkansas State University. 178 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Freshwater mussels of the upper Mississippi
River system. Accessed online October 21, 2009
<http://www.fws.gov/midwest/mussel/current_threats.html
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S. Hendryx,
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 871

 D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 872

 Scientific Name:
Pleurobema strodeanum
Common Name:
Fuzzy Pigtoe
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Fuzzy Pigtoe occurs in Florida where it is endemic to the Escambia and Choctawhatchee
rivers, and Alabama where it occurs in the Yellow River (Mirarchi et al., 2004). The historical
range of this species has been recently expanded (Williams et al. 2000, Blalock-Herod et al.
2005). In the Escambia drainage, this mussel occurs in the Escambia River in Escambia and Santa
Rosa Counties in Florida, in the Conecuh River in Escambia, Covington, Crenshaw, and Pike
Counties in Alabama, and in Murder, Sandy, and Burnt Corn Creeks in Conecuh County, Alabama,
in the Sepulga River in Conecuh County, Alabama, in Pigeon Creek in Covington County,
Alabama, in Patsaliga and Little Patsaliga Creeks in Crenshaw County, Alabama, and in Mill Creek
in Pike County, Alabama. In the Yellow River drainage in Alabama, this mussel occurs in the
Yellow River in Covington County. In the Choctawhatchee drainage, this mussel is known from
the Choctawhatchee River in Washington, Walton, and Holmes Counties in Florida, from
Limestone Creek in Walton County, Florida, from Wrights Creek in Holmes County, Florida,
from Holmes Creek in Washington County, Florida, from the Choctawhatchee River in Geneva
and Dale Counties in Alabama, from the Little Choctawhatchee River in Dale and Houston
Counties, Alabama, from Panther Creek in Houston County, Alabama, from the West Fork
Choctawhatchee River in Dale and Barbour Counties, Alabama, from the East Fork
Choctawhatchee River in Henry County, Alabama, and the Pea River in Geneva, Dale, and Coffee
Counties, Alabama (Williams et al. 2000, Blalock-Herod et al. 2005). Blalock-Herod et al.
(2005) listed this species from 21 historical sites in the Choctawhatchee River drainage, detected
this species at six historical sites, and detected 34 new scattered sites in the upper and lower
portions of the river in Alabama and Florida.
Habitat:
The Fuzzy Pigtoe occurs in medium-sized creeks and rivers with slow to moderate current on sand
and silty-sand substrates (Williams and Butler 1994, Williams et al. 2000). Mirarchi et al.
(2004) describe this species' habitat as: "predominantly sand substrata in small to large streams
with scattered gravel, woody debris, and moderate flow (Clench and Turner 1956)."
Ecology:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that nothing is known about the ecology of this species, but that it is
presumably a short-term brooder similar to its congeners.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there from 21-80 populations of Fuzzy Pigtoe, providing the
following details: "Recent mussel status surveys found that the populations of the fuzzy pigtoe
(represented by live animals and shell material) have declined from: 31 historic sites to 18
currently active sites, 8 inactive, and 5 undetermined population status within the Escambia River
drainage; 4 historic sites to 0 currently active sites within the Yellow River drainage; and 51
historic sites to 40 currently active sites, 7 inactive sites. In totality, the fuzzy pigtoe has declined
from a total of 86 historic sites to its remaining distribution of 58 sites. It has been extirpated

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 873

 from approximately 22% of its historic range. Only 4 populations were represented by 10 - 20
individuals, but most supported only 1 or 2 individuals (Williams et al., 2000; Blalock-Herod et
al., 2005). At least some of the extant populations may be capable of reproducing, as one
specimen was found with eggs partially in swollen marsupia during July (Williams et al. in
review). Low-level recruitment may be occurring; however, long-term viability of the fuzzy pigtoe
is questionable (see USFWS, 2003). Blalock-Herod et al. (2005) listed this species from 21
historical sites in the Choctawhatchee River drainage, relocated it at 6 and found it at 34 new sites
scattered in the upper and lower portions of the river in Alabama and Florida. Pilarczyk et al.
(2006) recorded recent collections (in 2004) of this species following surveys of 24 sites at 11
sites including West Fork Choctawhatchee River, Eightmile Creek (just over the border in Florida),
Patsaliga Creek, Pea River, Pea Creek, East Fork Choctawhatchee River, and Murder Creek compared to
Murder Creek, Bottle Creek, West Fork Choctawhatchee River, Patsaliga Creek, Pigeon Creek, Jordan
Creek, Little Patsaliga Creek, Flat River, Eightmile Creek (Florida), Pea River, Pea Creek, Judy Creek,
and Hurricane Creek in surveys of the same sites in the 1990s. White et al. (2008) utilized specimens
from Eightmile Creek in Walton Co., Florida for host suitability studies." Total population size is
unknown for this species. Extant populations in Alabama appear to be small (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
The Fuzzy Pigtoe is declining (decline of 10-30 percent) in the short-term and moderately
declining (25-50 percent) in the long-term. This mussel has experienced at least a 22 percent
range reduction and now occurs at only 58 sites, many of which have very low abundance (FWS
2003, NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Fuzzy Pigtoe as imperiled in Alabama and Florida. Recently
discovered populations slightly expanded the overall range of this species, but abundance is low,
populations appear to be declining, and there is general deterioration of habitat and water quality
in some portion of its range (NatureServe 2008). This species is a federal Candidate and merits
full ESA protection before long-term population viability is compromised. Its rank is being
changed from special concern (Williams et al. 1993) to threatened by the American Fisheries
Society (draft 2010, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss and degradation pose the greatest threat to the survival of mussels in the southeastern
United States including the Fuzzy Pigtoe (Neves et al. 1997). The Fuzzy Pigtoe is threatened by
stream channelization and alteration, siltation and runoff from agriculture and silviculture,
eutrophication from chicken farms, gravel and sand mining, oil and gas exploration, localized
industrial pollution from pulp mills on the Escambia, municipal pollution, watershed
development, and impoundment (NatureServe 2008). NatureServe (2008) states: “Silvicultural
activities and chicken farms are expanding in southern Alabama. Twenty-five different
impoundments have been proposed for the Choctawhatchee River system alone (Blalock et al.,
1998). Bank sloughing has impacted habitat in the Escambia mainstem in Florida. The stream and
river habitats are vulnerable to habitat modification, sedimentation, and water quality degradation
from a number of activities. Highway and reservoir construction, improper logging practices,
agricultural runoff, housing developments, pipeline crossings, and livestock grazing often result in
physical disturbance of stream substrates or the riparian zone, and/or changes in water quality,
temperature, or flow. Sedimentation can cause direct mortality of mussels by deposition and
suffocation (Ellis, 1936; Brim Box and Mossa, 1999) and can eliminate or reduce the recruitment
of juvenile mussels (Negus, 1966; Brim Box and Mossa, 1999). Suspended sediment can also
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 874

 interfere with feeding activity of mussels (Dennis, 1984). Many of the confirmed extant
populations of this species are in the vicinity of highway and unpaved road crossings due to ease
of access for surveyors. Highway and bridge construction and widening could affect populations
of these species unless appropriate precautions are implemented during construction to reduce
erosion and sedimentation, and maintain water quality standards. The construction of reservoirs
and the associated habitat changes (e.g., changes of sediments, flow, water temperature, dissolved
oxygen) can directly impact mussel populations (Neves et al., 1997). Nutrients, usually
phosphorus and nitrogen, may emanate from agricultural fields, residential lawns, livestock
feedlots, poultry houses, and leaking septic tanks in levels that result in eutrophication and
reduced oxygen levels in small streams.”
Disease or predation:
NatureServe (2008) states that disease or predation are poorly known for this species, but could
contribute to further decline due to its restricted distribution and low numbers associated with
extant populations.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Fuzzy Pigtoe, and no occurrences are
appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). This species is a federal candidate and
merits immediate ESA protection. It is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama but
this designation does not confer regulatory protection. It has no state status in Florida. It is
possible that at least one occurrence of this species may border the Conecuh National Forest in
Alabama, but this does not provide habitat protection. NatureServe (2008) provides the following
management recommendations for this species: "protect populations through acquisitions and
easements by working with government agencies and conservation organizations; establish buffers
and streamside management zones for all agricultural, silvicultural, mining, and developmental
activities; maintain high water and benthic habitat quality; consider propagation and reintroduction
of cultured stock, and consider federal listing if populations decline further. Conservation
activities have been limited to working with private landowners in south Alabama and west Florida
to encourage the use of Best Management Practices to reduce the effects of agriculture and
silviculture (see USFWS, 2003)."
Other factors:
Several other factors threaten the Fuzzy Pigtoe. This mussel is threatened by impacts from nonpoint source pollution and sedimentation (NatureServe 2008). It is particularly susceptible to
catastrophic events because populations are generally small and geographically isolated. The Fuzzy
Pigtoe is threatened by any factor which threatens its host fishes. Genetic inviability is a potential
threat to this species as populations may be below effective population size to maintain long term
viability. This mussels is also potentially threatened by invasive species such as Asiatic clam, zebra
mussel, and black carp (USFWS 2003, NatureServe 2008).
References:
Blalock, H.N., J.J. Herod, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Freshwater mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of
the Pea River Watershed of Alabama and Florida. Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 61 pp.
Blalock-Herod, H.N., J.J. Herod, J.D. Williams, B.N. Wilson, and S.W. McGregor. 2005. A
historical and current perspective of the freshwater mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from the
Choctawhatchee River drainage in Alabama and Florida. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 875

 Natural History, 24: 1-26.
Brim Box, J. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and
problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 18(1): 99-117.
Brim Box, J. and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 21: 1-143.
Clench, W.J. and R.D. Turner. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from
the Escambia to the Suwanee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences,
1(3): 97-239.
Dennis, S.D. 1984. Distributional analysis of the freshwater mussel fauna of the Tennessee River
system, with special reference to possible limiting effects of siltation. Ph.D. Thesis. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 247 pp.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Negus, C.L. 1966. A quantitative study of growth and production of unionid mussels in the River
Thames at Reading. Journal of Animal Ecology, 35: 513-532.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of aquatic
mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. Pages 43-85 in
G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Pilarczyk, M.M., P.M. Stewart, D.N. Shelton, H.N. Blalock-Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2006.
Current and Recent historical freshwater mussel assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains.
Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2): 205-226.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Candidate and listing priority assignment form:
Fusconaia rotulata, Ptychobranchus jonesi, Fusconaia escambia, Lampsilis australis, Pleurobema
strodeanum, Villosa choctawensis, Quincuncina burkei. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama
City Field Office, Panama. 20 pp.
White, M.P., H.N. Blalock-Herod, and P.M. Stewart. 2008. Life history and fish host
identification for Fusconaia burkei and Pleurobema strodeanum (Bivalvia: Unionidae). American
Malacological Bulletin, 24(1/2): 121-125.
Williams, J.D. and R.S. Butler. 1994. Class Bivalvia, Order Unionoida, freshwater bivalves.
Pages 53-128, 740-742 in M. Deyrup and R. Frantz (eds.) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
Volume 4. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Williams, J.D., H.N. Blalock, A. Benson, and D.N. Shelton. 2000. Distribution of the freshwater
mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae and Unionidae) in the Escambia and Yellow river
drainages in southern Alabama and western Florida. Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 61 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 876

 Scientific Name:
Pleurocera corpulenta
Common Name:
Corpulent Hornsnail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
This snail is endemic to the Tennessee River in Tennessee and Alabama. This snail occurred in
Bridgeport, TN and in Battle Creek in Marion County, TN, and also at Muscle Shoals and
Florence, Alabama (Goodrich 1928, Burch and Tottnham 1980). It is only known to be extant in
the tailwaters of Nickajack Dam in the vicinity of Bridgeport with a total range of less than 4
square km (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Habitat:
This snail was associated with large river, high gradient riffles with gravel and cobble substrate in
moderate to swift current. The only extant population is in the tailwaters of a dam at depths of two
to four meters (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Populations:
There is only one known extant population of this species, and population size is unknown but
likely low.
Population Trends:
This snail has experienced a large long-term decline of 75 to 90 percent (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Corpulent Hornsnail is critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008). It is classified as vulnerable
by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
Impoundment has reduced the range of this species to a single occurrence in the tailwaters of a
dam. Because there is only one surviving population, it is very vulnerable to further habitat loss
and degradation. The survival of this species is contingent upon high water quality and sound water
release practices at the dam (NatureServe 2008). Several factors threaten to degrade water
quality for this species. It is potentially threatened by the development of a commercial marina on
the bank of the Tennessee River in Marion County (U.S. ACOE 2009). It also potentially occurs
within the project area of a proposed industrial development by the Chicago Bridge and Iron
Company on the bank of the Tennessee River and Guntersville Reservoir in Marion County (TVA
2009). The Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management (2003) reports that the Tennessee River
basin has been widely degraded by nonpoint source pollution from many sources, particularly
agriculture, urban development, logging, and surface coal mining (ADEM 2003). Agricultural
runoff increases sedimentation and nutrient loading and degrades habitat quality for aquatic
species such as the Corpulent Hornsnail. In addition, there are more than 130 confined animal
feeding operations in the Tennessee River basin (ADEM 2003). Aquatic habitats in the basin are
also degraded by water-related recreational activities and nonpoint source pollution from onsite
residential sewage systems (ADEM 2003).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 877

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect this species.
Other factors:
Due to this snail's extremely limited distribution, specialized habitat requirements, and limited
dispersal capability, it is vulnerable to random catastrophic events (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management. Tennessee River Basin Watershed Management
Plan. 2003. Clean Water Partnership. Available at:
http://www.adem.state.al.us/Education%20Div/Nonpoint%20Program/Basins/TennesseeRiverBa
sinManagementPlan.pdf
Last accessed Jan. 11, 2010.
Burch, J.B. and J.L. Tottenham. 1980. North American freshwater snails. Walkerana, 1(3): 81215.
Goodrich, C. 1928. Strephobasis: A section of Pleurocera. Occasional Papers of the Museum of
Zoology, University of Michigan, 192: 1-15.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 2009. Final Environmental Assessment. Chicago Bridge and Iron
Company Marion County, Tennessee.
http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/chicago_bridge_iron/fea.pdf Last accessed January 12,
2010.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Rarity Club Marina Draft Environmental Assessment. File
No. 200500237. Applicant: Nickajack Shores Holdings LLC. Application for Proposed Docks at
Embayment Adjacent to Tennessee River Mile 426.7R Nickajack Reservoir.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 878

 Scientific Name:
Pleurocera curta
Common Name:
Shortspire Hornsnail
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
This snail is endemic to the Tennessee River system in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama
(NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are from 6-20 populations of this species, and that total
population size is unknown. Mirarchi (2004) reports that no extant populations of this species
have been detected recently. Historically this snail occurred in the Duck River in Humphreys
County, Tennessee (van der Schalie 1973) and in the Tennessee River and Shoal Creek in
Florence, Alabama (Hinkley 1906). Goodrich (1928) cites the nominal subspecies as occurring
from the Holston-Tennessee River from McMillan, Knox County, Tennessee, to the Muscle
Shoals area in Alabama, and potentially below it. Goodrich also cites the Cumberland River in the
vicinity of Nashville, Tennessee, and Caney Fork near Carthage, Tennessee, including sub-fossil
specimens in Wayne County, Kentucky, and also just above the mouths of the Clinch, Little, and
Little Tennessee Rivers, and Paint Rock and Flint Rivers in Alabama. Goodrich (1928) cites the
subspecies roanense from the Emory River in Emory and Roane counties and from the Little
River in Blount County, Tennessee. Branson and Batch (1987) report this species in Kentucky
from the Red River in Logan and Todd counties and in the Rockcastle River in Laurel Co. and the
Cumberland River in McCreary County (NatureServe 2008). Burch and Tottenham (1980) report
that the range of this species is contracting.
Population Trends:
This snail has experienced a substantial long-term decline of 50 to more than 90 percent, and has
declined in the short-term by 30 to over 70 percent (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Shortspire Hornsnail is critically imperiled (S1S2) in Alabama, and imperiled (S2) in
Kentucky and Tennessee (NatureServe 2008). It is state listed as threatened by the state of
Tennessee. It is categorized as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
This snail is threatened by habitat loss and degradation from a variety of sources. The Alabama
Dept. of Environmental Management (2003) reports that the Tennessee River basin has been
widely degraded by nonpoint source pollution from many sources, particularly agriculture, urban
development, logging, and surface coal mining (ADEM 2003). Agricultural runoff increases
sedimentation and nutrient loading and degrades habitat quality for aquatic species such as the
Shortspire Hornsnail. In addition, there are more than 130 confined animal feeding operations in
the Tennessee River basin (ADEM 2003). Aquatic habitats in the basin are also degraded by waterrelated recreational activities and nonpoint source pollution from onsite residential sewage
systems (ADEM 2003).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 879

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This snail is listed as threatened by the state of Tennessee, but this designation does not confer
regulatory protection. There are no regulatory mechanisms in place to protect this declining
species.
References:
Branson, B.A., D.L. Batch, and S.M. Call. 1987. Distribution of aquatic snails (Mollusca:
Gastropoda) in Kentucky with notes on fingernail clams (Mollusca: Sphaeriidae: Corbiculidae).
Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science, 48(3-4): 62-70.
Burch, J.B. and J.L. Tottenham. 1980. North American freshwater snails. Walkerana, 1(3): 81215.
Dillon, R.T., Jr. 2004. The biology and conservation of freshwater gastropods: introduction to
the symposium. American Malacological Bulletin 19(1/2): 31.
Goodrich, C. 1928. Strephobasis: A section of Pleurocera. Occasional Papers of the Museum of
Zoology, University of Michigan, 192: 1-15.
Hinkley, A.A. 1906. Some shells from Mississippi and Alabama. The Nautilus, 20(3): 34; 20(4):
40-44; 20(5): 52-55.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment for Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone,
Madison, and Morgan Counties, Alabama. Southeast Region, Atlanta. Available online:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/717323/Wheeler-National-Wildlife-Refuge-Complex-FinalCCP---Wheeler-NWR . Last accessed June 29, 2009.
van der Schalie, H. 1973. The mollusks of the Duck River drainage in central Tennessee.
Sterkiana, 52: 45-56.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 880

 Scientific Name:
Pleurocera pyrenella
Common Name:
Skirted Hornsnail
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of the Skirted Hornsnail is 100-250 square km in tributaries of the Tennessee River in
Alabama and Georgia. This species is endemic to north-central Alabama and parts of Walker
County, Georgia. There are historical reports from tributaries in portions of Limestone, Madison,
and Morgan counties (Burch 1989). This species was not detected south of the Tennessee River
in Morgan County in a mid-1990s surveys (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Habitat:
This snail utilizes a variety of habitats, generally in areas that lack swift current. It occurs in pools,
runs, and occasionally riffles, as well as in swampy streams and impounded springs, and appears
to be tolerant to silty conditions (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are from 6 - 20 populations of this snail, but many of
these are no longer extant. In Georgia, it was known from Crawford Creek in Walker County and
from Peavine Creek and Little and West Chickamauga creeks in Catoosa County. Only the
Chickamauga and West Chickamauga Creek populations have recently been documented as extant.
In Alabama this species is known from a few sites in Limestone, Madison, and Morgan counties,
but may no longer be extant in Morgan County.
Population Trends:
The Skirted Hornsnail is rapidly declining (decline of 30-50 percent) in the short-term, and has
experienced a substantial long-term decline of 50-75 percent (NatureServe 2008). It is extirpated
from several areas where it formerly occurred.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) categorizes the Skirted Hornsnail as imperiled (S2) in Alabama and historical
in Georgia. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
Limited distribution and vulnerability to habitat degradation make this snail vulnerable to
extinction (Mirarchi et al. 2004). It occurs in an area which is used almost exclusively for
intensive agriculture and is thus threatened by water quality degradation from input of sediment,
pesticides, and fertilizers (Mirarchi et al. 2004). Extensive irrigation is also a threat. This snail is
further threatened by urban sprawl from Huntsville, which could result in direct habitat loss and
nonpoint source pollution (Mirarchi et al. 2004). One example of the threat from development is
Billy Christopher River Front Development on the bank of the Elk River and Wheeler Reservoir
in Limestone County. This community water use facility includes dredging, construction of a boat
dock, and a back-lying development, including boat storage, an inland lake, parking area, roads,
culverts, and associated residential development (U.S. ACOE 2009). Runoff from this
development is one example of the increasing threats in the area that are cumulatively degrading
aquatic habitats for species such as the Skirted Hornsnail.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 881

 This snail occurs in waters in or adjacent to Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Wheeler (FWS 2007)
states that habitat loss and fragmentation and the degradation of aquatic ecosystems are two of the
most important ecological threats facing the complex. Habitat has been lost and degraded for
development to support burgeoning human population. The region surrounding the refuge is one
of the fastest growing areas in Alabama. Habitat has been lost and degraded for agriculture, floodcontrol projects, transportation corridors, and residential development (FWS 2007). The
Conservation Plan states that aquatic ecosystems have been greatly deteriorated by human
activities including impoundment and other activities that cause erosion and sedimentation.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect this snail.
References:
Burch, J.B. and J.L. Tottenham. 1980. North American freshwater snails. Walkerana, 1(3): 81215.
Campbell, D. and P. Harris. 2006. Report on molecular systematics of poorly-known freshwater
mollusks of Alabama. Report to the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Montgomery, Alabama. 34 pp.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Final Environmental Assessment. File No. 200702181.
Billy Christopher d/b/a River Front Development LLC. Nashville District, Regulatory Branch.
Available at:
http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/christopher_riverfront/christopher_river_front_develop
ment_fea.pdf Last accessed Jan. 11, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 882

 Scientific Name:
Polycentropus floridensis
Common Name:
Florida Brown Checkered Summer Sedge
G Rank:
G2
Range:
NatureServe (2008) estimates the range of Polycentropus floridensis as 100-250 square km
(about 40-100 square miles). It is known only from Florida and southernmost Alabama.
Distribution in each state is limited to a few ocurrences (Lago and Harris 1983, Rasmussen,
2004- 4 sites).
Habitat:
This caddisfly is found in small, clear streams with moderate flow in sandhills with a fairly heavy
pine-oak canopy (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
This caddisfly is known only from three occurrences: one in Alabama (Baldwin County) and two
in Florida (Walton and Hamilton Counties-the latter being disputed). Rasmussen (2004) also
found this species to be widespread, though not common, in Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
Population Trends:
This species is believed to be relatively stable "as long as stream habitats supporting populations
on Eglin AFB are protected" (Rasmussen et al. 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Florida and not rated in Alabama.
In Florida it is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need. According to Morse, in Deyrup (1994),
this species is Threatened.
Habitat destruction:
According to NatureServe (2008), the habitat for this species is subject to pollution, siltation, and
other forms of environmental degradation. The wellbeing of this species is largely dependent on
the quality of its stream habitat at Eglin Air Force Base (Rasmussen et al. 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this caddisfly. It is thought to be stable, largely based
on the current condition of its stream habitat at Eglin Air Force Base. Given, however, that issues
of national security are prioritized over species protection, its occurrence on the Base does not
ensure its continued survival.
References:
Clemson University Department of Entomology (J.C. Morse, ed.). 2002. Last Updated 5
September 2006. Trichoptera World Checklist. Online. Available:
http://entweb.clemson.edu/database/trichopt/index.htm.
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Lago, P.K. and S.C. Harris. 1983. New species of Trichoptera from Florida and Alabama. Annals

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 883

 of the Entomological Society of America 76(4): 664-667.
Morse, J.C. 1994. Caddisflies (Class Insecta: Order Trichoptera) (with Introduction by M.
Deyrup). Pp. 501-569 in M. Deyrup and R. Franz, editors, Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida,
Volume IV: Invertebrates. (R.E. Ashton, Jr., Series Editor) University Press of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.
Rasmussen, A.K. 2004. Species diversity and ecology of Trichoptera (caddisflies) and
Plecoptera (stoneflies) in ravine ecosystems of northern Florida. Unpublished PhD.
Dissertation, University of Florida. 130 pp.
Rasumussen, A.K., et al. 2008. Status Of Caddisflies (Insecta:Trichoptera) In Greatest
Conservation Need In Florida. Available online at
http://www.famu.org/trichoptera/pubs/rasmussena2008p1.pdf. Last accessed March 15, 2010.
Sutter, R.D., et al. 2001. An Assessment of the Desired Future Conditions for Focal
Conservation Targets on Eglin Air Force Base. Available online at
http://www.tncfire.org/documents/USfln/USFLN2_EglinDFC.pdf. Last accessed March 15,
2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 884

 Scientific Name:
Potamogeton floridanus
Common Name:
Florida Pondweed
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This plant is known from a single drainage, the Blackwater River, in Santa Rosa County, Florida
(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant is found in ponds and along river margins (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
The pondweed is sometimes water-pollinated, with dispersal occurring passively by downstream
flow.
Populations:
As of 1997, four occurrences were reported in the Blackwater River (NatureServe 2008). Global
population size is not known.
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this species.
Status:
The pondweed is known from an extremely small range. NatureServe (2008) ranks the Florida
pondweed as critically imperiled in Florida, where it is also listed as endangered.
Habitat destruction:
Within its extremely limited range, this plant is threatened by recreation (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is listed as endangered in Florida, this designation affords the Florida pondweed no
significant regulatory protections; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the
Florida pondweed.
References:
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 3, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 885

 Scientific Name:
Potamogeton tennesseensis
Common Name:
Tennessee Pondweed
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Tennessee pondweed is an aquatic herb endemic to a small area within the Appalachian region of
the southeastern United States. According to natural heritage records, it is currently known in the
following counties: Jackson, Pike, and Vinton Counties in Ohio, Fayette and Fulton Counties in
Pennsylvania, Blount, Cumberland, Monroe, Morgan, Polk, and Scott Counties in Tennessee, Bath
County in Alabama, and Harrison and Tucker Counties in West Virginia (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant occurs in ponds and slow-moving, acidic rivers or streams, generally in shallow waters
(TN NHP 2008).
Ecology:
Pondweed is aquatic, perennial, and produces both submerged and floating leaves. It flowers MaySeptember, and fruits mature August-September (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Total population size is unknown, but there are reportedly 5 occurrences in Tennessee, 1 in
Pennsylvania, 2 in Virginia, and 7 in West Virginia, though more were known historically
(NatureServe 2008). Population size is unknown.
Population Trends:
Tennnessee pondweed appears to be in decline.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Tennessee pondweed as critically imperiled in North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and imperiled in Tennessee and West Virginia.
Habitat destruction:
Because this species is sensitive to changes in water level, it is threatened by impoundments and
diversions. Individual populations may also be threatened by the commercial development of
habitat, land-use conversion, agriculture, and habitat fragmentation (Southern Appalachian Species
Viability Project 2002).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Tennessee pondweed; though it is listed
as threatened in Tennesse and widely recognized as rare or in need of conservation, these
designations offer it no substantial regulatory protections.
Other factors:
Tennessee pondweed is sensitive to water quality and is highly threatened by agricultural run-off
and other pollutants (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 886

 References:
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
November 9, 2009)
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 887

 Scientific Name:
Problema bulenta
Common Name:
Rare Skipper
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
NE - Not evaluated

Range:
This butterfly is present in Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, South
Carolina, and Virginia, and ranges from Delaware Bay and the Mullica estuary in New Jersey to
the Savannah River in Georgia. Natural heritage records indicate that the species is present in
Delaware’s Kent County, Maryland’s Dorchester County, North Carolina’s Brunswick and New
Hanover Counties, New Jersey’s Atlantic, Burlington, Cape May, Cumberland, and Salem
Counties, and in Virginia’s James City, King William, New Kent, and Surry Counties
(NatureServe 2008). Distribution across its range is patchy and inconsistent.
Habitat:
This species is typically found in brackish wetlands along tidal rivers, though individuals may also
occupy salt or freshwater marshes. Populations are present along the coastline and up to three
miles upriver. Adults leave marshes to feed, traveling up to half a kilometer or more, and are
most often observed foraging along roadsides. It is associated with Zizaneopsis in the southerly
portion of its range, and with Spartina cynosuroides in New Jersey and Maryland. Suitable habitat
must include nectar-bearing plants or nearby access to nectar foraging grounds. Preferred
breeding habitat is unknown. Though the species is non-migratory, adults are powerful fliers and
disperse relatively long distances to feed.
Ecology:
Adults are diurnal and feed exclusively on nectar: preferred nectar plants are swamp milkweed
(Asclepias incarnata), common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), dogbane (Apocynum
androsaemifolium), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). The juvenile form (larvae) is
herbivorous, and is often found on Spartina cynosuroides (Cromartie and Schweitzer 1993).
Larvae overwinter in one of the mid instars: larval period with diapause is approximately August to
June in the northern portion of this species’ range (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Total adult population size is unknown for this species: adults may be sparsely distributed over
large areas of habitat, which makes censusing difficult. There are roughly 20 known occurrences,
9 of which are in New Jersey (NatureServe 2008). This species is rare throughout its range.
Population Trends:
Population trends are unknown.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that P. bulenta is critically endangered in Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and imperiled in New Jersey.
Habitat destruction:
This species is threatened by river impoundments and diversions which threaten riparian habitat
(Shepherd 2005). Management activities can also threaten this species' habitat. Prescribed
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 888

 burning can destroy breeding habitat and kill larvae, and mowing of roadsides and fields destroys
foraging habitat (Shepherd 2005, NatureServe 2008). Shepherd (2005) reports that it is probable that this
species is threatened by development and by recreational activities. LeGrand (2006)
reports that in North Carolina, construction work on the dikes at Eagle Island has removed most
of the verbena used as a nectar source by this species.
Overutilization:
This species may be threatened by overcollection in some parts of its range, most particularly
Maryland and New Jersey (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is listed as endangered in Delaware and threatened in Maryland, these designations
afford the rare skipper no significant regulatory protections. No existing regulatory mechanisms
adequately protect the rare skipper from the threats it faces.
Other factors:
Shepherd (2005) reports that spraying for mosquito control is a significant threat to this species,
especially in Delaware. NatureServe (2008) reports that insecticide applications may exclude this
species from some habitat, and that the use of Dibrome and other highly toxic biocidal chemicals
are known threats at several occurrences (NatureServe 2008). This butterfly is also threatened by
invasive species. Invasion by Phragmites spp. (common reed) may exclude native foodplants at
some sites, and require significant management action (NatureServe 2008). Walton (2000) cites
invasive Phragmites australis as a threat to the rare skipper in Virginia. LeGrand (2006) also
reports that in North Carolina this species is threatened by the spread of common reed, which may
displace preferred plants. This species is also threatened by stochastic weather events, as extreme
storms likely eliminate small populations of this butterfly (Shepherd 2005).
References:
Cromartie, W.J. and D.F. Schweitzer, 1993. Biology of the rare skipper, Problema bulenta, in
southern New Jersey. J. of the Lepidopterists Society 47(2): 125-133.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. 2006. Notes on the Butterflies of North Carolina – Thirteenth Approximation.
March 2006. Accessed March 30, 2010 at: http://149.168.1.196/nbnc/13th/13th.pdf
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
October 20, 2009).
Shepherd, M. D. 2005. Species Profile: Problema bulenta. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan,
and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CD-ROM Version 1
(May 2005). Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
Walton, D.P. 2000. The Impact of Phragmites on Rare Species and Natural Communities. In:
Phragmites in Virginia: A Management Symposium. Commonwealth of Virginia. December 14,
2000. Accessed March 30, 2010 at:
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/documents/phragsymp.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 889

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus acherontis
Common Name:
Orlando Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that the total range of P. acherontis is less than 100-250 square km
(less than about 40 to 100 square miles). It is endemic to central peninsular Florida. All element
ocurrances lie within a small limestone region on the south side of the Wekiva River, in the
vicinity of metropolitan Orlando in Seminole and Orange counties.
Habitat:
The Orlando Cave crayfish occupies karst aquifers (NatureServe 2008). It has been collected
from mouths of springs, sinkholes, underground streams, wells, and caves. It frequents both the
lighted and deeper, dark portions of such systems. Deyrup and Franz (1994) state that "[t]his
crayfish is restricted to groundwater sites associated with spring caves and wells. It has been
reported from the lighted portions of sinkholes and from the vicinity of spring openings at several
sites. At the Apopka site, divers reported finding specimens throughout the cave system, as well
as in the lighted 'blue hole' portion of the sinkhole entrance. Presumably these white crustaceans
are vulnerable to fish predation in the lighted vents of spring caves, such as those at Wekiva and
Palm springs."
Ecology:
According to Deyrup and Franz (1994), "This cavernicolous crayfish is of particular interest
because it represents an aberrant, probably relictual, species with no surviving surface relatives...
Hobbs (1942) suggests that this group of crayfishes was derived from the earliest crayfish stocks
that invaded the Florida peninsula."
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are approximately four ocurrences, all near Orlando,
Florida. The type locality, a well, has collapsed. There are estimated to be fewer than 5
populations with less than 1000 total individuals. The largest known population contains less than
50 adults.
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this rare species. The type locality was lost when a well
collapsed.
Status:
Procambarus acherontis is endemic to a very narrow region of Florida with a rapidly expanding
human population. There are very few ocurrences, and the species is critically imperiled
(NatureServe 2008). Florida lists it as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The Florida
Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals designates P. acherontis as Rare. In 1985
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that listing Procambarus acherontis as Endangered was
warranted by the available scientific information (50 FR 19761). The listing was precluded by
other FWS actions, and the species languished on the C-2 Candidate List until that list was
abolished. It is ranked as endangered by both the IUCN and the American Fisheries Society.
NatureServe (2010) recommends state and federal listing.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 890

 Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2010) states that this species is likely susceptible to many forms of disturbance and
is threatened by human population growth in the rapidly expanding city of Orlando, and that
increasing development may negatively affect hydrological conditions and threaten aquatic cave
environments.
Deyrup and Franz (1994) report that "the extensive urbanization in this area is affecting both water
quality and quantity of local groundwater reserves."
In 1985 the Orlando Sentinel reported that "[Procambarus acherontis) is one variety that has found
itself in the worst position -- living in wells and underwater caves that straddle the OrangeSeminole county line, where growth is erupting in once-rural areas." Furthermore, the Sentinel
quotes Richard Franz, “[b]esides the direct effect of development replacing crayfish territory, the
creature may be threatened by water quality deterioration caused by storm water runoff and
groundwater pollution… It is in a very tenuous situation.''
According to the Florida Springs Task Force (2000), the entire range of the Orlando Cave
Crayfish (P. acherontis) lies within heavily urbanized areas that are at risk for groundwater
pollution.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2010) reports that none to few (0-3) occurrences of this species are appropriately
protected and managed. There might be an occurrence at Wekiva Springs State Park, but it was not
detected by Franz during 2002 surveys. NatureServe recommends preservation of existing
occurrences, state/federal listing, and the acquisition of Apopka Blue Sink and buffer.
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. Wekiva River Basin State Parks
Multi—Unit Management Plan. Available online at
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/WekivaRiverBasinStateParks.pdf. Last
accessed August 30, 2009.
Florida Springs Task Force. November 2000. Florida’s Springs: Strategies for Protection &
Restoration, at p. 13. Available online at
http://www.pinellas.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/FloridaSprings.pdf. Last accessed
September 26, 2009.
Franz, R. & D. S. Lee. 1982. Distribution and evolution of Florida's troglobitic crayfishes. Bull.
Florida St. Mus., Biol. Sci. 28(3):53-78.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 891

 Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Franz, Richard (Dick). Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611. 352/392-1721; SUNCOM 622-1721.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1942. The crayfishes of Florida. University of Florida Press, Biological
Science Series, 3(2): 179 pp.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr., H.H. Hobbs III., and M.A. Daniels. 1977. A review of the troglobitic decapod
crustaceans of the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 244: 1-183.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Orlando Sentinel. Palm Springs Cave Crayfish, Procambarus Acherontis. December 15, 1985,
Special Section.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 892

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus apalachicolae
Common Name:
Coastal Flatwoods Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Procambarus apalachiacolae is known from the coastal flatwoods of Bay and Gulf counties,
Florida (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Procambarus apalachicolae is found in Florida's coastal flatwoods in lentic situations and burrows
(Crandall and Fetzer 2003).
Populations:
This species is known from two counties, and information is not available on population size or
trend.
Status:
Procambarus apalachicolae has a restricted range, and is threatened by commercial and residential
development (NatureServe 2008). Its status in Florida is imperiled (NatureServe 2008). AFS lists
this species as Threatened due to habitat loss and limited range.
Habitat destruction:
Procambarus apalachicolae is facing habitat loss threats from continued development of coastal
property in and around Panama City, Florida (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Crandall, K.A., and J.W. Fetzer Jr. 2003. Web page about Procambarus apalachicolae. Available
online at
http://crayfish.byu.edu/astacidea/cambaridae/procambarus/leconticambarus/procambarus_apalac
hicolae.html. Last accessed April 23, 2009.
Hobbs, H. H. Jr, and C. W. Hart Jr. 1959. The freshwater Decapod crustaceans of the
Apalachicola drainage system in Florida, southern Alabama, and Georgia. Bull. Florida State
Museum. 4(5):145-91.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 893

 names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 894

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus attiguus
Common Name:
Silver Glen Springs Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
CR - Critically endangered

Range:
The Silver Glen Springs Crayfish is known only from the type locality, which is Silver Glen
Springs, in Marion County, Florida (Hobbs and Franz 1992). This species has an Area of
Occupancy of less than 10 sq. km (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
P. attiguus inhabits a subterranean karst stream with a moderately strong discharge through springs
and sand boils (NatureServe 2008). The spring is currently used for recreation (swimming).
According to NatureServe (2008), most specimens were observed "sequestered in small cervices
in the walls [of the cave]".
Deyrup and Franz (1994) state that "this crayfish was collected in a large cavern, about 213 m
(700 ft) inside the main spring entrance. Specimens have been found in flocculence of reddish
organic material, possibly bacterial growth, on a breakdown slope near the floor of the cavern, and
floating about 30 m (100 ft) above the floor in the water column, presumably displaced from the
ceiling by bubbles of air escaping from the diver's regulator (Hobbs and Franz 1992)."
Populations:
This species is known from a single site. Although only three animals have been collected, Hobbs
and Franz (1992) report that the collectors observed several more sequestered in small crevices
in the walls of the cave.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled. The State of Florida lists it as a
Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It is ranked by AFS as endangered and by the IUCN as
critically endangered.
Habitat destruction:
The survival of this crayfish is threatened by recreation. It occurs in a single cave in the Ocala
National Forest which is owned by the St. Johns River Water Management District and is managed
as a public recreation area. This species is threatened by water pollution or disturbance from
tourists. One solution tube has been roped off to protect wildlife, but this ultimately does not stop
tourists from entering the cave. Snorkelers and scuba divers are able to access many of the cave
solution tubes which lead to the chamber where P. attiguus is present.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to the USFS (2005), P. attiguus is found in the Ocala National Forest, where it is a
USFS Sensitive Species, but this designation offers the species no regulatory protection.
Other factors:
Due to the low levels of nutrients reaching the cave chamber due to the strong outflow current, it
can be assumed that this species has a late reproductive maturity and a long life history making it
susceptible to any loss of individuals (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 895

 References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Franz, Richard (Dick). Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611. 352/392-1721; SUNCOM 622-1721.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. and R. Franz. 1992. Procambarus (Ortmannicus) attiguus, a new troglobitic
crayfish (Decapoda: Cambaridae) from the Saint Johns River Basin, Florida. Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington 105(2):359-365.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Regional Forester Sensitive Species, Regions 8 And 9. Available
online at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480093cd9&dispositi
on=attachment&contentType=pdf. Last accessed June 30, 2009.
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 896

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus barbiger
Common Name:
Jackson Prairie Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Jackson Prairie crayfish is confined to the Jackson Prairie area in Mississippi.
Habitat:
P. barbiger has been found in deep, simple burrows in well-drained prairie soils that are rich in
organic material; it burrows generally to bedrock and is intolerant of cultivation (NatureServe
2008). The Mississppi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (2005) notes that the species
occupies Jackson Prairie and associated pine seeps.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports about 6-20 populations of P. barbiger with a total of 1000-2500
individuals. A recent study by MS NHP has greatly increased the number of known populations of
this species.
Population Trends:
According to NatureServe (2008) this species is presently secure, but fragile.
Status:
Procambarus barbiger is ranked as imperiled (NatureServe 2008). The State of Mississippi has
designated it as a Tier 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It was also a Federal C-2
Candidate Species before that list was abolished. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as
threatened by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
The Jackson Prairie crayfish is threatened by development. NatureServe (2008) states: "The TVA
is upgrading a section of transmission line in Scott county, which will see heavy equipment
moving through the Jackson Prairie area. The presence of heavy vehicles will cause the soils to
compact, crushing the burrows of this species. Additionally, the construction work that will take
place, will cause increased run-off making the water turbid and increasing sedimentation.
Conversion of prairie to agricultural land leads to extirpation of this species. Re-estalishment of
prairie does not see the return of this species (Fitzpatrick 1996). Land use may pose a significant
threat to this species. . . . Data suggest that when prairie is disturbed (e.g., by farming) the species
disappears and is replaced by other species when disturbance ceases."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Procambarus barbiger occurs on the Bienville National Forest, where it is considered a Forest
Service Sensitive Species (USFS 2008), but the protection offered under this designation is
discretionary. No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
Other factors:
This crayfish is threatened by pollution from agriculture and development, particularly
sedimentation (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 897

 References:
Fitzpatrick, Joseph F., Jr. Department of Biological Scienc es, University of South Alabama,
Mobile, AL 36688. (205)46 0-6331.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Jones, R. L. 1985a. Field survey #851030-2. (85050).
Jones, R. L. 1985b. Field survey #851028-3. (85053, 85058)
Jones, R. L. 1985c. Field survey #851118-3. (85061, 85064)
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fish and Parks.. 2005. Mississippi’s Comprehensive
Conservation Strategy. Available online at
http://home.mdwfp.com/ContentManagement/Html/htmldownload.aspx?id=281. Last accessed
June 28, 2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
U.S. Forest Service May 2008. Environmental Assessment for National Forests in Mississippi Route Designation. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/mississippi/travel/Route%20Designation%20EA.pdf. Last accessed June
28, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 898

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus cometes
Common Name:
Mississippi Flatwoods Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
All known sites for this species are within ten miles of Starkville in Lowndes and Oktibbeha
counties, Mississippi (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The Mississippi Flatwoods crayfish is found in relatively simple burrows in flatwood and
meadows; it occupies rich, well-drained soils with bedrock approximately seven meters maximum
below the surface (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Less than ten occurrences of this species are known. NatureServe (2010) estimates global
abundance at 250-2500 individuals.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2010) reports a short-term decline of 10-30 percent for this species, stating: "The
complex of species within "hagenianus" (of which cometes is one), was historically abundant in
Mississippi, and in some cases even an agricultural pest. The decline appears to be associated with
increased chemical use in agricultural activities. Urbanization and construction would also have
local impacts on species, however the species within this complex are poorly known (Hartfield
pers. comm. 1995). The species no longer occurs at the type locality (B. Jones, pers. comm.,
2009)."
Status:
NatureServe (2010) ranks this species as critically imperiled. It was a Federal C-2 Candidate
species before that list was abolished. The State of Mississippi classifies it as a Tier 1 Species of
Greatest Conservation Need. This means that it is in need of immediate conservation action
and/or research because of extreme rarity, restricted distribution, unknown or decreasing
population trends, specialized habitat needs and/or habitat vulnerability. It is ranked as vulnerable
by the IUCN and as endangered by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2010) reports that this species is susceptible to habitat modification, and that it was
extirpated from its type locality due to habitat modification. It is threatened by increased
chemical use in agricultural activities, urbanization, and construction (NatureServe 2010).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
Other factors:
NatureServe (2010) states that this species "has been poisoned owing to the problems they caused
to crops."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 899

 References:
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1978. Systematics of the crawfishes of the Hagenianus Group of the genus
PROCAMBARUS,subgenus Gir ardiella (Decapoda, Cambaridae). Tulane Stud. Zool. Bot. 20:
57-98.
Fitzpatrick, Joseph F., Jr. Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Alabama,
Mobile, AL 36688. (205)46 0-6331.
Fitzpatrick,, J.F., Jr. 1976. The taxonomy and biology of the prairie crawfishes,
PROCAMBARUS HAGENIANUS (Faxon) and its allies. In James W. Avault, Jr. ed., Freshwater
Crayfish. Papers from the 2nd international symposium on freshwater crayfish, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana: Division of continuing Education, Louisiana State University. pp. 381-391.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Mississippi Department of Wildlfe, Fish and Parks. 2006. Mississippi’s Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Chapter 2: Approach And Methods.
Available online at http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/More/Final/Chapter%202.pdf
Last accessed August 8, 2009.
Paul D. Hartfield, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View
Parkway, Suite A, Jackson, MS 39213. 601 965 4900.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 900

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus delicatus
Common Name:
Bigcheek Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
CR - Critically endangered

Range:
Procambarus delicatus is restricted to one site (Alexander Springs Cave) in Lake County, Florida,
USA (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This species lives in subterranean pools in aquatic caves characterized by low energy input,
according to NatureServe (2008). The springs are "surrounded by cypress, cabbage palmettoes,
and a number of hardwood trees and shrubs" (Hobbs and Franz 1986). According to Deyrup and
Franz (1994), "the first two specimens reportedly were collected at the mouth of a small vent and
in the main spring boil at Alexander Springs … while the third specimen was taken in an algal
covered area at a depthof a little less than two meters and about 15 meters from the nearest vent"
(Internal citations omitted).
Populations:
The Bigcheek Cave Crayfish is only known from the type locality, Alexander Springs, as reported
by NatureServe (2008). Fewer than 10 specimens have been taken in the 15 plus years its
existence has been known. This may be related to the fact that its cave habitat at Alexander Springs
is inaccessible to humans. Hobbs and Franz (1986) postulate that the low population of P.
delicatus (and P. horsti from Big Blue Springs) is linked to the low energy input into springs, as
compared to the larger amount of energy available in sinks via organic inputs.
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this rare species.
Status:
Only one occurrence of this species is known (NatureServe 2008), giving it a Florida state status
of critically imperiled. AFS lists this species as Endangered due to its extremely limited range.
Florida lists it as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It is ranked as critically endangered by
the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
There is an extensive recreation area at Alexander Springs, including camping, boating, swimming,
and other activities (Waymarking.com 2007). This has the potential to reduce the water quality of
the Springs.
According to Dickson and Franz (1980) “[b]ecause troglobitic organisms have evolved in
relatively constant environments, many of their adaptations may be highly specialized allowing
existence only under prevailing ambient conditions. The reduction of O2 consumption and energy
turnover of gill tissues reported in this study gives evidence of the highly specialized nature of
physiological and biochemical adaptations in troglobitic organisms. Because of these adaptations
troglobitic species may be susceptible to subtle changes in water quality.”
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (2008) states that Florida’s freshwater springs system is

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 901

 threatened. Major causes of problems in springs include landscaping, development and urban sprawl,
water consumption, dumping in sinkholes, agriculture and livestock, golf courses
and other recreation.
According to Walsh (2001):
“Perhaps the most serious potential threat to Florida’s hypogean and spring faunas is groundwater pollution and/or saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and aquifer resources are
increasingly tapped. Streever (1992, 1995) reported on a kill and post-kill recovery of the
troglobitic Santa Fe Cave Crayfish (Procambarus erythrops) and three troglophiles that may have
been due to physicochemical changes associated with flushing of contaminants and/or Suwannee
River water during a flood event. In recent years, there have been notable increases in
contaminants and nutrients within some Florida ground-water sources (e.g., Katz and others,
1999). Eutrophication in spring habitats may result in greater algal growth, increased turbidity,
and physicochemical and biological changes that can be detrimental to native species.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to NatureServe(2008), the only occurrence at Alexander Springs is on land belonging to
the U.S. Forest Service (Ocala National Forest). The Ocala National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan does not mention Procambarus delicatus. It is a Forest Service Sensitive
Species, but this designation provides no regulatory protection and this crayfish is threatened by
recreation.
Alexander Springs is designated as a Wild River for 3 miles and a Scenic River for 7 miles under
the U.S. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (USFS 1999 at p. 4-10). The goal of the Forest Service is to
"provide an essentially unmodified natural environment along wild segments of wild and scenic
rivers and a predominantly natural environment along scenic segments." Id. at p. 4-11.
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Dickson, G.W. and R. Franz. 1980. Respiration Rates, ATP Turnover and Adenylate Energy
Charge in Excised Gills of Surface and Cave Crayfish. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology A, 65:4(375-379).
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. and R. Franz. 1986. New troglobitic crayfish with comments on its relationship
to epigean and other hypogean crayfishes of Florida. J. Crust. Biol. 6(3):509-519.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 902

 Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
U.S. Forest Service. 1999. Ocala National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/florida/ocala/resources/planning.php. Last accessed
April 8, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Regional Forester Sensitive Species, Regions 8 And 9. Available
online at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480093cd9&dispositi
on=attachment&contentType=pdf. Last accessed June 30, 2009.
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.
Waymarking.com. 2007. Ocala National Forest: Alexander Springs Waymark. Available online at
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM1VDM. Last accessed April 8, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 903

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus econfinae
Common Name:
Panama City Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
Procambarus econfinae has a range less than 100 square km (less than about 40 square miles). It
is known only from a small area on the peninsula that now supports Panama City, Bay County,
Florida. Within this area, the species' distribution is patchy. Range is bounded on three sides by
St. Andrews Bay system, and on the fourth (east) by Callaway Creek and Bayou.
Habitat:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Panama City crayfish lives in ditches and temporary ponds in
pine flatwoods in which the water table is near the surface. The species is a secondary burrower.
It appears that the species has been driven from its natural habitat (depressions in pine flatwoods)
by habitat alteration and now survives largely or almost entirely in disturbed habitats. Power line
rights-of-way now support the largest populations. Importantly, the species is restricted to certain
soil types and habitats within its range.
In dry periods, the species inhabits simple burrows that it constructs in wet pine flatwoods soils;
burrows are marked by short chimneys of stacked mud balls. During times of higher water,
[Panama City] crayfish leave the burrows and inhabit the flooded flatwoods as well as adjacent
drainage ditches (Florida FWC 2001). According to Florida FWC (2001), P. econfinae occupies
sites year-round, but its seasonal presence above ground is tied to periods of high water.
Ecology:
Females are known to reproduce in late spring and early summer.
Populations:
According to NatureServe (2008), there are less than five populations of P. econfinae. While
slightly more than two dozen sites are known, all are from the same local area and essentially
represent parts or fragments of a larger metapopulation. Each local population occupies less than
1.5 acres in a small area of Bay County, Florida. Florida FWC (2001) reports that this species is
known only from two localities on the small peninsula on which Panama City, Bay County, is
located.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) warns that this species is being extirpated rapidly. It is facing a very rapidly
decline (decline of 50-70 percent) in the short term. The loss of populations and decline in area
of occupancy between 2000 and 2010 is projected to exceed 50 percent. Most known sites are
threatened by road widening, pollution, pipeline installation, drainage, and other forms of
disturbance.
Status:
This species is classified as critically imperiled. According to NatureServe (2008) it has a very
limited range and high threats to nearly all remaining occupied habitat. Despite one petition to
change its Florida State status to Threatened due to a tiny range and ongoing significant habitat

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 904

 loss (Keppner 2001b), and another to declassify it entirely because its natural habitat is
completely eliminated (Bingham 2003), P. econfinae remains a Florida Species of Special
Concern, as it has been since 1987. It is ranked as endangered by both the IUCN and the American
Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
Land development is the primary cause of the decline of this species (Anonymous 2006).
Restriction to a rapidly growing urbanized area severely endangers this species with habitat loss,
drainage, and pollution. Most of the known occurrences are imminently threatened by highway
expansion and infrastructural and other forms of development. Silvicultural activities have also
heavily impacted the species (NatureServe 2008).
Deyrup and Franz (1994) state that "[u]ntil recently, it was feared that this species had become
extinct as a result of wetland drainage and the impacts of increased urbanization. However, recent
collections in the vicinity of the type locality (near junction of County Roads 389 and 390)
indicate that the species is still extant, but due to its small range it should be considered
extremely vulnerable to extinction because of continued drainage projects and development in the
Panama City area."
Florida FWC (2001) warns that wetland drainage and urban and residential development have
greatly reduced and continue to threaten the remaining habitat of this species, stating: "[t]here is a
dire need to protect from development and drainage any wet flatwoods habitat that is known to or
which may harbor this species."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2009) reports that there is no known protection for this species, and strongly
recommends the following: "Maintain natural hydrologic regimes of all pine flatwoods and
included ephemeral wetlands in area; this entails absolutely no drainage, ditching, and filling.
Protect sites from pollutants, including runoff from roads and leakage from septic tanks. Avoid
dredging and installation of box culverts at locations of roadside populations."
NatureServe (2009) reports that a CCAA may be in development for this species.
Other factors:
This crayfish is threatened by pollution from development and silviculture (Anonymous 2006).
References:
Anonymous. 2006. Panama City crayfish- status assessment. Crayfish News, 28(1): 6.
Bingahm, F.O. 2003. A Petition to Reclassify the Status of the Panama City Crayfish
[Procambarus (Leconticambarus) econfinae Hobbs [1942] from a Species of
Special Concern (68A-27.00S F .A.C.) to an Unlisted Species. Available online at
http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Panama_City_crayfish_petition2.pdf. Last accessed
September 8, 2009.
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 905

 Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. 2001. Fact sheet on Panama City crayfish, Procambarus
econfinae. Available online at http://myfwc.com/docs/FWCG/panama_city_crayfish.pdf. Last
accessed September 23, 2009.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2002. Preliminary biological status report:
Panama City crayfish (PROCAMBARUS [LECONTICAMBARUS] ECONFINAE). Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee.
Ford, F. June 11, 2006. Efforts to Protect Panama City Crayfish Moving Forward: Mission:
Mudbugs. Panama City News Herald. Available online at
http://www.redorbit.com/modules/news/tools.php?tool=print&id=534409. Last accessed
September 8, 2009.
Franz, Richard (Dick). Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611. 352/392-1721; SUNCOM 622-1721.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1942. The Crayfishes of Florida. University of Florida Publication, Biological Science
Series 3(2), University of Florida, Gainesville.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Keppner, E. J. 2001a. Update on survey efforts for the Panama City crayfish, with notes on
threats to known sites. Letter to B. J. Gruver (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission), dated 3 December 2001.
Keppner, E. J. 2001b. An emergency petition to reclassify the status of the Panama City crayfish
[PROCAMBARUS (LECONTICAMBARUS) ECONFINAE Hobbs, 1942] from a species of
special concern (68A-27.005 F.A.C.) to a threatened species (68A-27.004 F.A.C.). Dated 20
August 2001.
Keppner, E. J., and L. A. Keppner. 2000. A preliminary search for the Panama City crayfish,
PROCAMBARUS (LECONTICAMBARUS) ECONFINAE, Hobbs, 1942, in Bay County, Florida.
Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Office.
Keppner, E. J., and L. A. Keppner. 2001. A survey and conservation status of the Panama City
crayfish. Report to The Bay Environmental Study Team, Inc.
Keppner, E. J., and L. A. Keppner. 2001. New site for the Panama City crayfish. Note to L.
Chafin (FNAI).
Keppner, L. A., and E. J. Keppner. 2002. Final report, extended survey for the Panama City
crayfish in Bay County, Florida. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama
City, Florida.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 906

 A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Moler, P. E. 1998. Recent collections of two Florida panhandle crayfishes. Notes from a
telephone conversation with D. R. Jackson, 11 Feb. 1998.
Moler, Paul. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Wildlife Research
Laboratory, 4005 South Main Street, Gainesville, FL 32601. (352) 955-2230.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 907

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus erythrops
Common Name:
Santa Fe Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the Santa Fe Cave crayfish has a range less than 100-250 square
km (less than about 40 to 100 square miles), being known only from southern Suwannee County,
Florida.
Habitat:
Procambarus erythrops inhabits subterranean pools. It occurs near entrances of flooded sinkholes
and caves on accumulations of detritus. Deyrup and Franz (1994) state: "Procambarus erythrops
occupies debris cones under large flooded sinkholes. As yet, no colonies have been found in
association with bat colonies. Little or no water flow, other than vertical movements associated
with local changes in the water table, has been noted in cave sites where this speciesoccurs. This
suggests that this species, like others in lucifugus complex, prefers the more stagnant portions of
cave systems where detrital material can accumulate without being washed away."
Ecology:
The species is long-lived for a crayfish with animals marked before August 1978 collected during
1994 in a cave in Suwannee Co., Florida (Streever 1996).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates 1 - 5 populations with less than 2500 individuals of P. erythrops. It
is known from several caves and sinks, probably interconnected, in Suwannee County, Florida. All
occurrences may be interconnected and function as one. Only two of the known sites (Sims and
Azure Blue sinks) contain substantial populations. There are an estimated 500 individuals at Sims
Sink, with other populations believed to be much smaller.
Status:
Florida lists this crayfish as a Species of Special Concern. NatureServe (2008) ranks it as
critically imperiled. It is ranked as endangered by both the IUCN and the AFS.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) warns that this species is potentially threatened by changes in hydrology and
detrital flow. All known occurrences possibly may function as one through interconnection of the
local aquifer. Contamination from runoff and alteration of the local water table may pose
potential problems. One site where this species occurred, Hildreth Cave, became a garbage dump
in the early 1970s (NatureServe 2008).
According to Walsh (2001): “Perhaps the most serious potential threat to Florida’s hypogean and
spring faunas is ground-water pollution and/or saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and
aquifer resources are increasingly tapped. Streever (1992, 1995) reported on a kill and post-kill
recovery of the troglobitic Santa Fe Cave Crayfish (Procambarus erythrops) and three
troglophiles that may have been due to physicochemical changes associated with flushing of
contaminants and/or Suwannee River water during a flood event. In recent years, there have been

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 908

 notable increases in contaminants and nutrients within some Florida ground-water sources (e.g.,
Katz and others, 1999). Eutrophication in spring habitats may result in greater algal growth,
increased turbidity, and physicochemical and biological changes that can be detrimental to native
species.”
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (2008) states that Florida’s freshwater springs
system is threatened. Major causes of problems in springs include landscaping, development and
urban sprawl, water consumption, dumping in sinkholes, agriculture and livestock, golf courses
and other recreation. These threats could be avoided by state acquisition of the springs, or through
comprehensive land use planning.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) recommends instigating measures to protect the local aquifer throughout the
entire area encompassing known occurrences. According to Deyrup and Franz (1994) "Sims Sink
recently was secured by The Nature Conservancy and will be managed to protect this species. The
conservation status at most other sites is undocumented, although no crayfishes have been seen at
Hildreth Cave after it became a garbage dump in the early 1970s." No existing regulatory
mechanisms adequately protect this species.
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Franz, R., and J. A. Bauer. 1983d. Cave Site Report: Sim's Sink, Suwannee County, Florida.
Unpublished report to Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. H.H. Hobbs III, and M.A. Daniel. 1977. A review of the troglobitic decapod
Crustaceans of the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 244: 1-183.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 909

 F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Relyea, K, and B. Sutton. 1975. A new troglobitic crayfish of the genus Procambarus from
Florida (Decapoda: Astacidae). Tulane Studies in Zoology and Botany 19(1-2): 8-16.
Relyea, K. and B. Sutton. 1974. Ecological data for a Florida troglobitic crayfish. Biological
Sciences, No. 2-4 p. 234-235.
Streever, W.J. 1996. Energy Economy hypothesis and the troglobitic crayfish Procambarus
erythrops in Sim's Sink Cave, Florida. American Midland Naturalist 135(2):357-366.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 910

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus fitzpatricki
Common Name:
Spinytail Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
P. fitzpatricki is restricted to extreme southern Mississippi between the Wolf and Pascagoula
rivers. It occurs in George, Harrison, Jackson, and Stone Cos., Mississippi (S. Adams, pers.
comm., 2009 cited in NatureServe 2010).
Habitat:
The Spinytail crayfish has been found in moderately complex burrows in sandy soil, usually with a
high water table (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are fewer than 20 known occurrences of this species. Recent interest in this crayfish by the
Mississippi Natural Heritage Program has greatly increased the number of known populations of
this species. Most colonies are of moderate size for burrowers.
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled. It was a Federal C2 Candidate Species until
that list was abolished. The State of Mississippi classifies it as a Tier 1 Species of Greatest
Conservation Need. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as threatened by the American
Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
According to NatureServe (2008) this species has been historically threatened by lowering of the
water table and to a lesser extent overall toxic accumulation from industry. Currently it is
threatened by development and by food processing industries and chemical industries (Fitzpatrick
pers. comm. 1995 cited in NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species occurs on the DeSoto National Forest in Mississippi, where it is considered a Forest
Service Sensitive Species (USFS 2008) but this provides only discretionary levels of protection.
NatureServe (2010 reports that no occurrences of this species are appropriately protected and
managed.
References:
Fitzpatrick, Joseph F., Jr. Department of Biological Scienc es, University of South Alabama,
Mobile, AL 36688. (205)46 0-6331.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 911

 McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
U.S. Forest Service May 2008. Environmental Assessment for National Forests in Mississippi Route Designation. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/mississippi/travel/Route%20Designation%20EA.pdf. Last accessed June
28, 2009.
Wiseman, J., R. L. Jones (86042), and K. Gordon. 1986. Field Survey.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 912

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus franzi
Common Name:
Orange Lake Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
This species is known only from three caves in the vicinity of Orange Lake, north-central Marion
County, Florida, USA.
Habitat:
This speicies is found in pools under bat roosts in the dark zones of caves (NatureServe 2008).
According to Deyrup and Franz (1994), "two of the three sites are caves that house nursery
colonies of the southeastern bat (Myotis austroriparous). The third is a flooded cave system that
is entered through a big sink that accumulates a large quantity of detritus." Deyrup and Franz
(1994) report that "this cavernicolous crayfish focuses its activities at major sources of detrital
input."
Populations:
According to NatureServe (2008) there are less than five populations with fewer than 1000 total
individuals of Procambarus franzi. There are only three known sites, all in the vicinity of Orange
Lake, Marion County, Florida; these may be interconnected and act as one occurrence. All known
populations are small.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled, stating: "The limited populations
sizes, limited distribution, and fluctuation in water levels are all threats to this species." Florida
lists it as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It is ranked as endangered by both the IUCN
and the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2010) reports that potential threats include pollution and changes in hydrology,
stating: "The type locality is impacted by quarrying activies, and it is unknown what impacts this
will be having on the groundwater quality and general disturbance. The species is known to occupy
only one chamber in its type locality, making it sensitive to any threat which disturbs this
chamber."
Deyrup and Franz (1994) state that "Since the species has a very restricted distribution and is
dependent on accumulations of detritus, it is vulnerable to habitat changes from both within caves
and around their entrances. Presumably, changes in groundwater quality and quantity, as well as
disruption of associated bat colonies, could lead to the extirpation of important crayfish
colonies."
According to Walsh (2001): “Perhaps the most serious potential threat to Florida’s hypogean and
spring faunas is ground-water pollution and/or saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and
aquifer resources are increasingly tapped. Streever (1992, 1995) reported on a kill and post-kill
recovery of the troglobitic Santa Fe Cave Crayfish (Procambarus erythrops) and three
troglophiles that may have been due to physicochemical changes associated with flushing of

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 913

 contaminants and/or Suwannee River water during a flood event. In recent years, there have been
notable increases in contaminants and nutrients within some Florida ground-water sources (e.g.,
Katz and others, 1999). Eutrophication in spring habitats may result in greater algal growth,
increased turbidity, and physicochemical and biological changes that can be detrimental to native
species.”
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (2008) states that Florida’s freshwater springs
system is threatened. Major causes of problems in springs include landscaping, development and
urban sprawl, water consumption, dumping in sinkholes, agriculture and livestock, golf courses
and other recreation.
According to Dickson and Franz (1980): “Because troglobitic organisms have evolved in
relatively constant environments, many of their adaptations may be highly specialized allowing
existence only under prevailing ambient conditions. The reduction of O2 consumption and energy
turnover of gill tissues reported in this study gives evidence of the highly specialized nature of
physiological and biochemical adaptations in troglobitic organisms. Because of these adaptations,
troglobitic species may be susceptible to subtle changes in water quality.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to Deyrup and Franz (1994) "all known localities are in private ownership." NatureServe
(2010) reports that no occurrences are appropriately protected.
Other factors:
Because this species is closely associated with bat guano, it is threatened by any factor which
threatens bat populations (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Dickson, G. W. and R. Franz. 1980. Respiration Rates, ATP Turnover And Adenylate Energy
Charge In Excised Gills Of Surface And Cave Crayfish. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology Vol. 65A p. 375.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Franz, R., and J. A. Bauer. 1983a. Cave Site Report: Orange Lake Cave. Unpublished report to
Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 914

 Franz, Richard (Dick). Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611. 352/392-1721; SUNCOM 622-1721.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 915

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus horsti
Common Name:
Big Blue Springs Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
This species is endemic to northern Florida (NatureServe 2008). It has been found at less than
five sites in Jefferson, Leon and Wakulla counties. The entire area is less than 100 square km
(less than about 40 square miles).
Habitat:
This troglobitic species occurs in aquatic caves at the bottom of limestone springs, and has been
seen in the twilight zone between light and dark, according to NatureServe (2008). Deyrup and
Franz (1994) state that P. horsti was "seen in the boil area of springs as well as in caves at water
depths of 21-26 m (70-80 ft)."
Ecology:
Caine (1978) believes the specialized habitat of P. horsti, a fast-flowing freshwater spring, has
caused it to adapt its behaviour to attacks. Display differences and the lack of a swimming
response are adaptations to the fast flow, contrasting with the behaviour of surface species.
Hobbs and Means (1972) report that when they observed P. horsti, gastropods were the only
obvious form of food. The species was inactive during daytime and very active at night.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) states that this species is known from three sites in 3 adjoining counties, but
all occurrences are within a 12 mile radius. Reports of a fourth occurrence in Wakulla County
(Sally Ward Springs) requires verification.
NatureServe (2008) estimates less than 1000 total members of this species. Hobbs and Means
indicated in 1972 that the Big Blue Spring population may have been very large at that time.
Hobbs and Franz (1986) postulate that the low population P. horsti (and P. delicatus from
Alexander Springs) is linked to the low energy input into springs, as compared to the larger
amount of energy available via organic inputs into sinks.
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown.
Status:
Endemic to a very localized region in northern Florida, with no more than five known
occurrences, according to NatureServe (2008). This species may be sensitive to changes in water
levels and quality. Florida lists it as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
IUCN lists this species as endangered, as does the American Fisheries Society. The Florida State
Rank is critically imperiled, while the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and
Animals lists Procambarus horsti as Rare.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 916

 Deyrup and Franz (1994) state that "[t]his crayfish, like other cave species, is dependent on
organic detritus from the surface for food. Changes in land use on the surface and presumably
groundwater contamination could impact these subterranean crustaceans."
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) states that Procambarus horsti is very likely susceptible to habitat damage or
destruction from pollution of groundwater or aquifer.
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (2008) states that Florida’s freshwater springs
system is threatened. Major causes of problems in springs include landscaping, development and
urban sprawl, water consumption, dumping in sinkholes, agriculture and livestock, golf courses
and other recreation.
According to Dickson and Franz (1980) “[b]ecause troglobitic organisms have evolved in
relatively constant environments, many of their adaptations may be highly specialized allowing
existence only under prevailing ambient conditions. The reduction of O2 consumption and energy
turnover of gill tissues reported in this study gives evidence of the highly specialized nature of
physiological and biochemical adaptations in troglobitic organisms. Because of these adaptations
troglobitic species may be susceptible to subtle changes in water quality.”
According to Walsh (2001):
“Perhaps the most serious potential threat to Florida’s hypogean and spring faunas is ground-water
pollution and/or saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and aquifer resources are
increasingly tapped. Streever (1992, 1995) reported on a kill and post-kill recovery of the
troglobitic Santa Fe Cave Crayfish (Procambarus erythrops) and three troglophiles that may have
been due to physicochemical changes associated with flushing of contaminants and/or Suwannee
River water during a flood event. In recent years, there have been notable increases in
contaminants and nutrients within some Florida ground-water sources (e.g., Katz and others,
1999). Eutrophication in spring habitats may result in greater algal growth, increased turbidity,
and physicochemical and biological changes that can be detrimental to native species.”
Overutilization:
According to the Florida DEP (2007), in the Wakulla Springs State Park, “blind crayfish [such as
P. orcinus and P. horsti] are vulnerable to over collecting. Since the 1987 dive
project, no specimen collections of any troglodytic fauna have been authorized.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species enjoys some protection in the following sites in Florida: Shepherd Spring in the St.
Marks National Wildlife Refuge, Wakulla County; Big Blue Spring, Wacissa River, Jefferson
County; and, if species' presence is confirmed, Wakulla/Sally Ward Springs, Wakulla County
(NatureServe 2008). However, site protection alone does not assure protection of species, as the
water quality in the aquifer is subject to external influences.
The upper Wacissa River and an upland buffer is protected by the State of Florida, following
purchase by the Nature Conservancy (Business Wire 2000).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 917

 Deyrup and Franz (1994) suggest that "upstream drainage basins of the Wacissa River in Jefferson
County and Spring Creek in the St. Marks area should be protected.
Reports of P. horsti from Wakulla and Sally Ward springs should be investigated, and voucher
specimens from these sites should be deposited at the Smithsonian Institution, where there is
comparative material available for study. There should be an intensive survey of springs and caves
in the Tallahassee limestone area to find additional localities where this species exists."
References:
Business Wire. 2000. St. Joe Teams With The Nature Conservancy To Protect Wacissa River
Frontage. Available online at
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_Oct_2/ai_65634879/. Last Accessesd
April 6, 2009.
Caine, E.A. 1978. Comparative Ecology Of Epigean And Hypogean Crayfish Crustacea
Cambaridae From Northwestern Florida. American Midland Naturalist 99:2(315-329).
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Dickson, G.W. and R. Franz. 1980. Respiration Rates, ATP Turnover and Adenylate Energy
Charge in Excised Gills of Surface and Cave Crayfish. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology A, 65:4(375-379).
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2007. Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park
Unit Management Plan. Available online at
http://www.floridaenergy.org/parks/planning/parkplans/EdwardBallWakullaSpringsStatePark.pdf.
Last accessed December 3, 2009.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. and D. B. Means. 1972. Two new troglobitic crayfishes (Decapoda, Astacidae)
from Florida. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 84(46):393-410.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. and R. Franz. 1986. New troglobitic crayfish with comments on its relationship
to epigean and other hypogean crayfishes of Florida. J. Crust. Biol. 6(3):509-519.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr., H.H. Hobbs III., and M.A. Daniels. 1977. A review of the troglobitic decapod
crustaceans of the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 244: 1-183.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 918

 Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 919

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus lagniappe
Common Name:
Lagniappe Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
According to NatureServe (2008), Procambarus lagniappe is known from seven localities in
Kemper County and one location in Lauderdale County, Mississippi, and one location in Sumter
County, Alabama.
Habitat:
The Lagniappe crayfish occupies clear, swift, cool streams with firm sandy bottoms and emergent
vegetation (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
This species is estimated to have less than 5 total populations with less than 1000 individuals
(NatureServe 2008). It is known from nine localities. There are fewer than 50 specimens known.
Status:
The limited range and small population of this species gives it a status of critically imperiled in
Alabama and Mississippi (NatureServe 2008). In Alabama it is categorized as a Priority 2 - High
Conservation Need Species, while in Mississippi it is Tier 1 - "in need of immediate conservation
action and/or research because of extreme rarity, restricted distribution, unknown or decreasing
population trends, specialized habitat needs and/or habitat vulnerability." It is ranked as vulnerable
by the IUCN and as threatened by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
The main threat to this species is water quality degradation through urbanization, deforestation,
and agriculture (McGregor et al. 1999). NatureServe (2008) states, "Lots of deforestation and
agriculture occur in this species range in Mississippi."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) notes that P. lagniappe is recognized by MS NHP, but there are no known no
specific sites which are protected.
Other factors:
This species is threatened by water pollution. In the area where P. lagniappe occurs, infertile eggs
of a related species, P. jonesi, have been detected, and the empty eggs are possibly attributed to
water quality problems (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Fitzpatrick, J. F., Jr. 1990. Determination of the current status of the rare crayfish, Procambarus
(Pennides) lagniappe Black. Report submitted to the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program,
Jackson, Mississippi.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 920

 Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McGregor, S.W., T.E. Shepard, T.D. Richardson, and J.F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1999. A survey of the
primary tributaries of the Alabama and Lower Tombigbee rivers for freshwater mussels, snails,
and crayfish. Geological Survey of Alabama, Circular 196. 29 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, J.T. Garner, T.M. Haggerty, T.L. Best, M.F. Mettee, and P. O'Neil.
2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume Four: Conservation and Management Recommendations for
Imperiled Wildlife. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 pp.
Schuster, G. A. and C.A. Taylor. 2004. Report on the crayfishes of Alabama: literature and
museum database review, species list with abbreviated annotations and proposed conservation
statuses. Illinois Natural History Survey Technical Report, 2004(12): 47 pp.
Schuster, G.A., C.A. Taylor, and J. Johansen. 2008. An annotated checklist and preliminary
designation of drainage distributions of the crayfishes of Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist, 7(3):
493-504.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 921

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus leitheuseri
Common Name:
Coastal Lowland Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the total range of the Coastal Lowland Cave crayfish is less than
100-250 square km (less than about 40 to 100 square miles). It is known only from Pasco and
Hernando counties, Florida, USA. This is the southwestern limit of troglobitic members of this
subgenus in peninsular Florida.
Habitat:
Procambarus leitheuseri is found in flooded limestone cave systems (karst), at least some of
which open to the surface via sinkhole ponds (NatureServe 2008). It has been found at depths of
16.7 to 69.9 m. It is usually associated with silt on cave floors. One site is a freshwater lens
within a salt marsh. Most of the known sites show some tidal influence. Franz and Hobbs (1983)
report that this species was discovered in flooded cave system in Hernando County, Florida, with
floors made up of coarse sand and large blocks of breakdown in rooms and tunnels, thick layers of
organic silt in entrance shafts and deeper sections of the caves. It was only observed in the
freshwater zone above the halocline. The silt in its habitat is deposited on the cave floors in thick
layers, accumulating under vertical shafts or dispersing into the caves, depending on water
movement. The organic fraction of the silt is generated from biotic production in surface ponds.
The crayfish are associated with the silt, but are not found in shafts or surface ponds. According to
Deyrup and Franz (1994), "[T]his crustacean has been recovered from vertical sinkholes at
waterdepths in excess of 60 m (200 ft). It has been observed in these caves only in the freshwater
layer that lies above salt water zone. Most of the sinks in which this crayfish has been collected
show some tidal influences."
Populations:
The Coastal Lowland Cave crayfish is known from eight sites, five of which are within a 3-mile
radius and may constitute one occurrence (i.e., common aquifer).
Status:
The American Fisheries Society lists this species as Endangered due to limited range and habitat
loss. It as also been classified as Rare by the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants
and Animals. Florida lists it as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It is ranked as
vulnerable by the IUCN and as critically imperiled by NatureServe (2008).
Habitat destruction:
Procambarus leitheuseri is potentially threatened by changes in hydrology, with possible saltwater
intrusion into aquifer at some sites as a consequence of withdrawal of fresh water by humans in
this rapidly developing area (NatureServe 2008). Deyrup and Franz (1994) state that "[t]he species
is vulnerable to salt water rintrusion and other changes in water quality. As a result of rapid
urbanization in Hernando and Pasco counties, the surface area above these deep caves could be
affected by changes in land use practices. Alteration of sinkhole ponds that connect with these
vertical tubes could change the type, quality, and quantity of detrital matter that enters these caves,
thus impacting the crayfish's food supply."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 922

 According to Dickson and Franz (1980) “[b]ecause troglobitic organisms have evolved in
relatively constant environments, many of their adaptations may be highly specialized allowing
existence only under prevailing ambient conditions. The reduction of O2 consumption and energy
turnover of gill tissues reported in this study gives evidence of the highly specialized nature of
physiological and biochemical adaptations in troglobitic organisms. Because of these adaptations
troglobitic species may be susceptible to subtle changes in water quality.”
According to Walsh (2001): “Perhaps the most serious potential threat to Florida’s hypogean and spring
faunas is ground-water pollution and/or saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and aquifer
resources are increasingly tapped. Streever (1992, 1995) reported on a kill and post-kill recovery of the
troglobitic Santa Fe Cave Crayfish (Procambarus erythrops) and three troglophiles that may have been
due to physicochemical changes associated with flushing of contaminants and/or Suwannee River water
during a flood event. In recent years, there have been notable increases in contaminants and nutrients
within some Florida ground-water sources (e.g., Katz and others, 1999). Eutrophication in spring
habitats may result in greater algal growth, increased turbidity, and physicochemical and biological
changes that can be detrimental to native species.”
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (2008) states that Florida’s freshwater springs system is
threatened. Major causes of problems in springs include landscaping, development and urban sprawl,
water consumption, dumping in sinkholes, agriculture and livestock, golf courses and other recreation.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) states that there are probably no protected occurrences. One occurrence is
just south of Chassahowitzka Swamp CARL project within the Southwest Florida Water
Management District's Weekiwachee Riverine System project. NatureServe suggests that it is
essential to protect or acquire at least some occurrences (e.g., Eagles Nest and Die Polder) with
adequate buffers and consider state listing. This includes protect the local aquifer from pollution
and over-consumption. According to Hicks (1993), "None of the [eight] caves [inhabited by P.
leitheuseri] is protected, but one is within the Save Our Rivers' Weeki Wachee study area for
possible purchase."
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Dickson, G.W. and R. Franz. 1980. Respiration Rates, ATP Turnover and Adenylate Energy
Charge in Excised Gills of Surface and Cave Crayfish. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology A, 65:4(375-379).
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Franz, R., and H. H. Hobbs, Jr. 1983. Procambarus (ORTMANNICUS) leitheuseri, new species,
troglobitic crayfish (DECAPODA: CAMBARIDAE) from peninsular Florida. Proc. Biol.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 923

 Soc. Wash. 96(2):323-332.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Hicks, S. 10 North Suncoast Treasures Worth Saving. St. Petersburg Times, Pasco Times
February 21, 1993, Pg. 1
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 924

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus lucifugus
Common Name:
Florida Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The total range of Procambarus lucifugus is less than 100-250 square km (less than about 40 to
100 square miles) as determined by NatureServe (2008). The Florida Cave crayfish is restricted
to Florida in an arc about 80 miles long. P. lucifugus lucifugus (type locality: Sweet Gum Cave,
Citrus County) has been recorded from Citrus and Hernando Counties, northward to Marion
County, where it intergrades with P. lucifugus alachua (type locality: Hog Sink, Alachua County);
the latter continues into Alachua, Gilchrist, and Levy counties.
Habitat:
This species occupies subterranean/karstic fresh waters near surface openings of sinks, solution
chimneys, and caves, according to NatureServe (2008).
Ecology:
It is usually associated with bat roosts and roost-related debris. If the local bat fauna is depleted
this species could face population declines.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are 20-25 known elemental occurrences of this species.
Population size and trend information is unavailable.
Status:
According to NatureServe (2008), this species is endemic to small region of Florida, with no
known protected occurrences, and many populations are easily accessible to humans. Its status
within Florida is imperiled. Florida lists it as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) states that alteration in hydrology or flow of detritus could destroy
populations of this species, and that it is likely that it is being impacted by urbanization,
alterations to the hydrological regime and water pollution.
The Dudley Farm Historic State Park has several caves that contain Procambarus lucifugus, and
the caves have been impacted by heavy visitation including “modern garbage.”
According to Dickson and Franz (1980) “[b]ecause troglobitic organisms have evolved in
relatively constant environments, many of their adaptations may be highly specialized allowing
existence only under prevailing ambient conditions. The reduction of O2 consumption and energy
turnover of gill tissues reported in this study gives evidence of the highly specialized nature of
physiological and biochemical adaptations in troglobitic organisms. Because of these adaptations
troglobitic species may be susceptible to subtle changes in water quality.”
According to Walsh (2001): “Perhaps the most serious potential threat to Florida’s hypogean and
spring faunas is ground-water pollution and/or saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and
aquifer resources are increasingly tapped. Streever (1992, 1995) reported on a kill and post-kill

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 925

 recovery of the troglobitic Santa Fe Cave Crayfish (Procambarus erythrops) and three
troglophiles that may have been due to physicochemical changes associated with flushing of
contaminants and/or Suwannee River water during a flood event. In recent years, there have been
notable increases in contaminants and nutrients within some Florida ground-water sources (e.g.,
Katz and others, 1999). Eutrophication in spring habitats may result in greater algal growth,
increased turbidity, and physicochemical and biological changes that can be detrimental to native
species.”
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (2008) states that Florida’s freshwater springs
system is threatened. Major causes of problems in springs include landscaping, development and
urban sprawl, water consumption, dumping in sinkholes, agriculture and livestock, golf courses
and other recreation. These threats could be avoided by state acquisition of the springs, or through
comprehensive land use planning.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) recommends protection and/or aquisition of populations of both subspecies
and that appropriate authorities should consider state and federal listing because no populations of
this species are currently protected.
Other factors:
Because this crayfish is usually associated with bat roosts and roost-related debris, it is threatened
by declines in bat populations.
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Dickson, G.W. and R. Franz. 1980. Respiration Rates, ATP Turnover and Adenylate Energy
Charge in Excised Gills of Surface and Cave Crayfish. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology A, 65:4(375-379).
Dudley Farm Historic State Park Management Plan, available online at
www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/DudleyFarmHistoricStatePark.pdf.
Fenolio, D.B., G.O. Graening and J.F. Stout. 2005. Seasonal Movement Patterns Of Pickerel
Frogs (Rana Palustris) In An Ozark Cave And Trophic Implications Supported By Stable Isotope
Evidence. The Southwestern Naturalist 50(3):385-389.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Franz, R., and J. A. Bauer. 1983c. Cave Site Report: Bat Cave, Alachua Co., Florida. Unpublished
report to Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 926

 in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Lee, D.S. 1969. Notes on the Feeding Behavior of Cave-Dwelling Bullfrogs. Herpetologica, Vol.
25:3 (211-212).
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Walsh, S.J. Freshwater Macrofauna of Florida Karst Habitats. In: Kuniansky, E. (ed.). 2001. U.S.
Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida, February 13-16,
2001. Pp. 78-88. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 927

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus lucifugus alachua
Common Name:
Alachua Light Fleeing Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
T2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
This species is found exclusively in Florida where it is known from 11 or more caves in
Southwestern Alachua, western Gilchrist, and northern and eastern Levy counties, intergrading
with P. (O.) lucifugus lucifugus in Marion County.
Habitat:
The Alachua Light Fleeing Cave Crayfish lives in limestone sinks common to Florida. Some can
live in direct light, some require total darkness (NatureServe 2008). According to Deyrup and
Franz (1994), "these crayfishes apparently require unlighted groundwater habitats associated with
caves and sinks that attract large quantities of organic detritus, particularly bat guano, which they
use as food."
Populations:
There are less than 30 known populations of this species, and the total count of individuals is
unknown. It is known from 13 caves, while intergrade forms of this species are known from 14
additional caves (Walsh, 2001). Hobbs et al. (1977) found 11 localities in Alachua and Gilchrist
Cos., Florida.
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown.
Status:
This species has a restricted range and restricted habitat according to NatureServe (2008). It is
imperiled in Florida (NatureServe 2008) where it is also a Species of Greatest Conservation
Need. It is classified as vulnerable by the IUCN and as threatened by the American Fisheries
Society.
Habitat destruction:
According to NatureServe (2008), groundwater contamination negatively affects habitat quality
and food sources for this crayfish.
Deyrup and Franz (1994) report that P. l. alachua’s “dependence on supplies of concentrated detrital
material from the surface and on guano from bats makes these crayfishes vulnerable to changes in above
ground land use. They also are vulnerable to groundwater pollution and other changes in water quality
and quantity."
According to Dickson and Franz (1980) “[b]ecause troglobitic organisms have evolved in
relatively constant environments, many of their adaptations may be highly specialized allowing
existence only under prevailing ambient conditions. The reduction of O2 consumption and energy
turnover of gill tissues reported in this study gives evidence of the highly specialized nature of
physiological and biochemical adaptations in troglobitic organisms. Because of these adaptations
troglobitic species may be susceptible to subtle changes in water quality.”

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 928

 According to Walsh (2001):
“Perhaps the most serious potential threat to Florida’s hypogean and spring faunas is groundwater pollution and/or saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and aquifer resources are
increasingly tapped. Streever (1992, 1995) reported on a kill and post-kill recovery of the
troglobitic Santa Fe Cave Crayfish (Procambarus erythrops) and three troglophiles that may have
been due to physicochemical changes associated with flushing of contaminants and/or Suwannee
River water during a flood event. In recent years, there have been notable increases in
contaminants and nutrients within some Florida ground-water sources (e.g., Katz and others,
1999). Eutrophication in spring habitats may result in greater algal growth, increased turbidity,
and physicochemical and biological changes that can be detrimental to native species.”
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (2008) states that Florida’s freshwater springs
system is threatened. Major causes of problems in springs include landscaping, development and
urban sprawl, water consumption, dumping in sinkholes, agriculture and livestock, golf courses
and other recreation.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species. It occurs in the same location
as the Squirrel Chimney cave shrimp (Palaemonetes cummingi), which is listed under the Federal
ESA as Threatened (55 Fed. Reg. 25588, June 21, 1990). Therefore P. l. alachua in Squirrel
Chimney Cave benefits from the ESA habitat protections afforded to the cave shrimp.
The Dudley Farm Historic State Park has several caves that contain Procambarus lucifugus, but
rather than being protective these caves are threatened by recreational impacts.
Deyrup and Franz (1994) recommend that “[c]ertain sites, particularly those at Sunday Sink in
Marion County and Hog and Goat sinks in Alachua County, are in need of protection.”
Other factors:
Because this species is dependent on guano as a food source, it is threatened by declines in bat
populations. Extirpation of bats by urban development impacts the species in the Gainesville
metropolitan area.
The Dudley Farm Historic State Park has several caves that contain Procambarus lucifugus. The caves
have been impacted by heavy visitation including “modern garbage.” Fencing some caves is
recommended. Pollution from large community septic systems could also harm the aquatic cave
species.
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Dickson, G.W. and R. Franz. 1980. Respiration Rates, ATP Turnover and Adenylate Energy
Charge in Excised Gills of Surface and Cave Crayfish. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology A, 65:4(375-379).
Dudley Farm Historic State Park Management Plan, available online at
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 929

 www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/DudleyFarmHistoricStatePark.pdf. Last accessed
May 24, 2009.
Fenolio, D.B., G.O. Graening and J.F. Stout. 2005. Seasonal Movement Patterns Of Pickerel
Frogs (Rana Palustris) In An Ozark Cave And Trophic Implications Supported By Stable Isotope
Evidence. The Southwestern Naturalist 50(3):385-389.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
G. Nicholas. 1960. Checklist of Macroscopic Troglobitic Organisms of the United States.
American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Jul., 1960), pp. 123-160
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. H.H. Hobbs III, and M.A. Daniel. 1977. A review of the troglobitic decapod
Crustaceans of the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 244: 1-183.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Lee, D.S. 1969. Notes on the Feeding Behavior of Cave-Dwelling Bullfrogs. Herpetologica, Vol.
25:3 (211-212).
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, C.A., et al. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 930

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus lucifugus lucifugus
Common Name:
Florida Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
T2
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the total range of this species is about 100-250 square km
(about 40-100 square miles). P. (O.) l. lucifugus is found in Citrus and Hernando counties
northward to Marion County, Florida, where it intergrades with P. (O.) l. alachua.
Habitat:
P. l. lucifugus occupies subterranean/karstic waters near sites of detrital input, particularly large
sinkholes and areas under bat roosts in caves (NatureServe 2008). Deyrup and Franz (1994) report
that "Procambarus l. lucifugus is associated with a large nursery colony of southeastern bats
(Myotis austroriparous) at Sweet Gum Cave. This cave is subject to extreme fluctuations in the
local water table. During periods of low water, incredible numbers of this crayfish occur under
the traditional bat roost in the rear of the cave. During periods of flooding, crayfishes rarely are
seen in the accessible areas near the entrance, even when baited traps are used. This suggests that
the residual population remains in deeper portions of the cave where food supplies can be limited
during periods when this area is not accessible to bats."
Ecology:
This cave crayfish lilves on the floor of pools thick with organic sediments. It is also dependent
on the presence of bats for resources (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Hobbs et al. (1977) includes 8 localities of this species in Citrus, Hernando, Lake, and Marion
Cos., Florida. Walsh (2001) lists only two but includes 16 additional localities of intergrades
between subspecies. NatureServe (2008) estimates 6-20 populations with an unknown number of
individuals.
Status:
Procambarus lucigufus lucifugus is critically imperiled in Florida, based on restricted range and
restricted habitat (NatureServe 2008). The State of Florida classifies it as Rare, and lists it as a
Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It is listed as endangered by the American Fisheries
Society and by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) states that this species is threatened by groundwater contamination, and is
most likely intolerant of disturbances.
According to Deyrup and Franz (1994) "Its presence at Sweet Gum has been documented with
collections that span nearly 100 years. The cave is in private ownership, and the current owner is
trying to protect the cave. However, since the crayfish is known only from this site, it remains
vulnerable to changes in local land use and encroaching urbanization, and with its dependence on
bat guano for food, it could be seriously impacted with changes in the bat population."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 931

 According to Dickson and Franz (1980) “[b]ecause troglobitic organisms have evolved in
relatively constant environments, many of their adaptations may be highly specialized allowing
existence only under prevailing ambient conditions. The reduction of O2 consumption and energy
turnover of gill tissues reported in this study gives evidence of the highly specialized nature of
physiological and biochemical adaptations in troglobitic organisms. Because of these adaptations
troglobitic species may be susceptible to subtle changes in water quality.”
According to Walsh (2001): “Perhaps the most serious potential threat to Florida’s hypogean and
spring faunas is ground-water pollution and/or saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and
aquifer resources are increasingly tapped. Streever (1992, 1995) reported on a kill and post-kill Florida
recovery of the troglobitic Santa Fe Cave Crayfish (Procambarus erythrops) and three troglophiles that
may have been due to physicochemical changes associated with flushing of contaminants and/or
Suwannee River water during a flood event. In recent years, there have been notable increases in
contaminants and nutrients within some Florida ground-water sources (e.g., Katz and others, 1999).
Eutrophication in spring habitats may result in greater algal growth, increased turbidity, and
physicochemical and biological changes that can be detrimental to native species.”
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (2008) states that Florida’s freshwater springs system is
threatened. Major causes of problems in springs include landscaping, development and urban sprawl,
water consumption, dumping in sinkholes, agriculture and livestock, golf courses
and other recreation.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.
Other factors:
The Florida cave crayfish is closely associated with bat populations and is thus threatened by any
factor which threatens bat populations.
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Dickson, G.W. and R. Franz. 1980. Respiration Rates, ATP Turnover and Adenylate Energy
Charge in Excised Gills of Surface and Cave Crayfish. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology A, 65:4(375-379).
Fenolio, D.B., G.O. Graening and J.F. Stout. 2005. Seasonal Movement Patterns Of Pickerel
Frogs (Rana Palustris) In An Ozark Cave And Trophic Implications Supported By Stable Isotope
Evidence. The Southwestern Naturalist 50(3):385-389.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 932

 Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Manatee Springs State Park Management Plan.
Available online at
http://tlhwww4.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/ManateeSpringsStatePark.pdf. Last
accessed January 4, 2010.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr., H.H. Hobbs III., and M.A. Daniels. 1977. A review of the troglobitic decapod
crustaceans of the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 244: 1-183.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Lee, D.S. 1969. Notes on the Feeding Behavior of Cave-Dwelling Bullfrogs. Herpetologica, Vol.
25:3 (211-212).
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 933

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus lylei
Common Name:
Shutispear Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern
Range:
Procambarus lylei is restricted to small headwaters streams of the Yalobusha River in Calhoun,
Grenada, Montgomery, Yalobusha and Webster counties, Mississippi.
Habitat:
The Shutispear crayfish is found in headwaters of streams with cool, firm sand bottoms, moderate
to swift flow, and with trapped leaf litter (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
This species is known from 17 localities across a five-county area and is never plentiful. A recent
study by the MS NHP did not significantly increase its range, number of known populations, or
population size elements.
Population Trends:
This species is still present at historical sites that have been revisited and is not considered to be
declining in range. Busack (1988) suggested that the species' range was contracting due to habitat
degradation, including hydrologic and stream channel alterations and loss of cover, resulting
primarily from stream channelization and agriculture, but Fitzpatrick and Suttkus (1992) report
that the species is still present at re-visited sites, but may be reduced in abundance. At the most
agriculturally impacted site, P. lylei density was extremely low, and only juveniles were captured
so identification was not definitive (USFS 2009). NatureServe (2010) reports that recent
"improvement" of at least one site seems to have extirpated the species there.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks P. lylei as critically imperiled. The State of Mississippi classifies it as
a Tier 1 Species of Special Concern. AFS lists P. lylei as Vulnerable (Taylor et al 2007). It was a
Federal C2 Candidate Species before that list was abolished.
Habitat destruction:
The shutispear crayfish is vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation because of its limited range,
and because it seems intolerant of channelizing or deepening of its habitat (NatureServe 2008).
Fitzpatrick and Suttkus (1992) speculate that the species does not tolerate low oxygen levels or
eutrophication. Busack (1988) reports that this species is threatened by hydrologic and stream
channel alterations and loss of cover, resulting primarily from stream channelization and
agriculture. P. lylei density was found to be extremely low at sites heavily impacted by agriculture
(Fitzpatrick and Suttkus 1992, USFS 2009). NatureServe (2008) reports than an additional
conservation concern is that the already limited range is fragmented by Grenada reservoir and
probably by channelized portions of the Yalobusha River and its major tributaries, presumably
isolating populations in the tributary systems from one another. Recent "improvement" of at least
one site seems to have extirpated the species there.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 934

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species, and NatureServe (2008) reports that no
occurrences are appropriately protected and managed.
References:
Adams, S. B. 2009. Procambarus (Pennides) lylei. USDA Forest Service, Crayfishes of
Mississippi website, Oxford, MS. Available online at
http://maps.fs.fed.us/crayfish/factsheets/FS0046.pdf. Last accessed October 19, 2009.
Busack, C. A. 1988. The status of Procambarus lylei Fitzpatrick and Hobbs, a rare endemic
crayfish of northern Mississippi, with notes on its genetic relationship to other species of the
subgenus Pennides of genus Procambarus. Final Report to the Mississippi Natural Heritage
Program, 12 pages, +2 figures, +2 appendixes. (unpublished)
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1983. How to Know the Freshwater Crustacea. Wm. C. Brown Co.
Publishers. Dubuque, Iowa. 277 pp.
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. and R.D. Suttkus. 1992. A report of the status of the crawfish
PROCAMBARUS (Pennides) LYLEI Fitzpatrick and Hobbs. Journal of the Mississippi Academy
of Sciences. Vol 37(3): pp. 12-13.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
United States Forest Service (USFS). 2009. Crayfishes of Mississippi website. United States
Department of Agriculture- United States Forest Service (USFS), Oxford, Mississippi. Available
online at: http://maps.fs.fed.us/crayfish/index.jsp. Last accessed: 6 February 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 935

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus milleri
Common Name:
Miami Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
This species is known from only one locality in Miami, Dade County, Florida.
Habitat:
NatureServe (2008) indicates that there is little known about the habiitat requirements of P.
milleri. Specimens collected came from a well drilled into oolitic limestone to a depth of 22
feet. Deyrup (1994) reports that individuals were pumped from solution channels in the Biscayne
aquifer.
Ecology:
According to Loftus and Bruno (2006), “[t]he origin of P. milleri as a subterranean organism is
recent. In fact, it has not yet acquired all the morphological traits, such as blindness and lack of
pigmentation, of truly subterranean organisms. Our data indicate that this rare crayfish is endemic
to southern and central Miami-Dade County."
Populations:
With only one population known from 18 specimens, found in a well at Little Bird Nursery and
Garden Store, Miami, Dade County, Florida, NatureServe (2008) estimates less than 1000 total
individuals for the Miami cave crayfish. Loftus and Bruno (2006) found P. milleri in “13 new
locations on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. Most collections were from wells in the Fort Thompson
limestone formation between seven to eleven-meters deep, although one collection was made at
three meters.”
Status:
This species is ranked as critically imperiled by NatureServe (2008), as a Species of Greatest
Conservation Need by the state of Florida, and as endangered by the IUCN and the American
Fisheries Society. Its occurence only in Miami endangers it because of the multiplicity of threats
to the local aquifer from the burgeoning human population and resulting water demands.
Protection will be especially difficult because it occurs in a heavily utilized aquifer.
Habitat destruction:
Deyrup (1994) states that P. milleri "is probably extremely vulnerable to groundwater
contamination. Since it is restricted to one of the fastest growing urban areas in the United States,
the Miami cave crayfish probably has little chance of survival, particularly in light of the impacts
of groundwater pumping, salt water intrusion, and the introduction of other toxins."
Loftus and Bruno (2006) report that “its small population and limited range make it vulnerable to
human activities that affect groundwater, including pumping of water from the aquifer, degradation
of water quality, and limestone removal.”
The Florida Springs Task Force (2000) reports that the entire range of the Miami Cave Crayfish
(P. milleri) lies within heavily urbanized areas that are at risk for groundwater pollution and salt

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 936

 water intrusion.
Loftus et al (2001) report that: "The Atlantic Coastal Ridge is another area affected by
urbanization and changing hydrologic management. Aquatic habitats, such as the transverse glades
that cut through the Ridge, have been replaced by canals and will not be restored. Ground-water
habitats and animal communities may have been less affected. As in karst areas elsewhere, deeper
geological formations (>5 m) beneath the Rocky Glades and the Atlantic Coastal Ridge have voids
of various dimensions known to house truly subterranean aquatic species. These include the
Miami Cave Crayfish (Procambarus milleri), known only from a few wells in southern Florida."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no protected populations of this species, as reported by NatureServe (2008).
Protection/aquisition of the only EO and as much buffer as possible is recommened. Authorities
should consider state/federal listing.
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Florida Springs Task Force. November 2000. Florida’s Springs: Strategies for Protection &
Restoration, at p. 13. Available online at
http://www.pinellas.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/FloridaSprings.pdf. Last accessed
September 26, 2009.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Franz, Richard (Dick). Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611. 352/392-1721; SUNCOM 622-1721.
HOBBS, H.H., JR. 1971. A NEW TROGLOBITIC CRAYFISH FROM FLORIDA. QUART. J.
FLORIDA ACAD. SCI. 34(2):114-124.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. H.H. Hobbs III, and M.A. Daniel. 1977. A review of the troglobitic decapod
Crustaceans of the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 244: 1-183.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Loftus W.F. and M.C.Bruno. Distribution and Life History of the Endemic Miami Cave Crayfish
(Procambarus Milleri) in Southern Florida. Abstract in 2006 Greater Everglades Ecosystem
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 937

 Restoration Conference Planning, Policy and Science: Program & Abstracts. Available online at
http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/GEER2006/Abstracts.pdf. Last accessed July 29, 2009.
Loftus, W.F. et al. 2001. The Ecological Role of the Karst Wetlands of Southern Florida in
Relation to System Restoration. In U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings,
Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011, Eve L. Kuniansky, editor, pp. 8-15.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 938

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus morrisi
Common Name:
Putnum County Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
CR - Critically endangered

Range:
Procambarus morrisi is known only from a single sinkhole aquatic cave (Devil's Sink) near
Interlachen, in Putnam County, Florida.
Habitat:
The Putnam County cave crayfish occupies karst aquatic caves associated with sinkholes in sandy
ridges of the Southern Trail Ridge.
According to Deyrup and Franz (1994), "[l]arge numbers of crayfishes were found in a small cave
at the bottom of a deep water-filled sinkhole at a water depth in excess of 100 ft."
Populations:
There is only one known occurrence of this species. No estimate of population size is available,
but known habitat is very limited in size. The species is known only from 15 specimens, from one
collection of seven, and a second collection of eight individuals.
Status:
Florida lists this crayfish as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It is ranked as critically
imperiled by NatureServe (2008), as critically endangered by the IUCN, and as endangered by the
American Fisheries Society. This species is direly threatened. According to the Florida Springs
Task Force (2000), "human-caused erosion will soon seal the entrance to the cave where the only
known population of the Putnam County Cave Crayfish (Procambarus morrisi) is found, and may
extinguish the species. "
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) warns that the only known population is disturbed by recreational use and
dumping. The local ground water is subject to pollution and withdrawal for human consumption.
According to the Florida Springs Task Force (2000), "human-caused erosion will soon seal the
entrance to the cave where the only known population of the Putnam County Cave Crayfish
(Procambarus morrisi) is found, and may extinguish the species. "
Deyrup and Franz (1994) report that "[t]he only known site for this species is located on private
land in the lake district near the town of Interlachen. This area currently is subject to land
speculation and development, particularly around the lakes. The sink is used by locals as a
swimming hole and by SCUBA divers. Divers probably do not pose any threat to these
crustaceans, although none of these crayfishes should be collected except in connection with
scientific studies. Divers report junk cars and other trash in the bottom of the sink. There is a real
possibility that toxic chemicals could be dumped into the sink, killing the crayfishes in the cave."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The only known population is not protected, according to NatureServe (2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 939

 References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Florida Springs Task Force. November 2000. Florida’s Springs: Strategies for Protection &
Restoration, at p. 13. Available online at
http://www.pinellas.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/FloridaSprings.pdf. Last accessed
September 26, 2009.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Franz, Richard (Dick). Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611. 352/392-1721; SUNCOM 622-1721.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr., and R. Franz. 1991. A new troglobitic crayfish, PROCAMBARUS
(LONNBERGIUS) MORRISI, (Decapoda: Cambaridae) FROM FLORIDA. PROC. BIOL. SOC.
WASH. 104 (1): 55-63.
Hobbs, Horton, H., Jr. and R. Franz. 1991. A new troglobitic crayfish Procambarus
(Lonnbergius) morrisi (Decapoda: Cambaridae) from Florida. Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington 104(1):55-63.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 940

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus orcinus
Common Name:
Woodville Karst Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
According to NatureServe (2008), the Woodville Karst Cave crayfish has a range less than 100250 square km (less than about 40 to 100 square miles). It occurs only in the aquifer and
sinkholes of a very small area of the Woodville Karst Plain, on the border of Leon and Wakulla
counties, Florida.
Habitat:
Procambarus orcinus occupies flooded caves, twilight zones, especially the deep parts of caves
(Natureserve 2008). It is often found clinging upside-down on ceilings or head-down on vertical
walls. According to Deyrup and Franz (1994) "[t]he Woodville cave crayfish is reported to cling
upside down to the ceiling and head down on the vertical walls of flooded caves. Individuals are
most numerous along the walls, especially where there are cracks and fissures near the floor.
They are seen commonly in both the twilight areas and the dark portions of flooded caves."
Populations:
There are approximately 12-15 known occurrences, many of which may be interconnected, all in
Leon and Wakulla counties, Florida. All occurrences lie within a single, relatively small aquifer.
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled. The State of Florida lists it as a
Species of Greatest Conservation Need. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as threatened
by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
Foot and vehiclar traffic have caused erosion around at least one ocurrence at Gopher Sink
(NatureServe 2008). All populations are prone to potential pollution and detrital change. There is
concern that this aquifer may be receiving pollutants from the Tallahassee area.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2010) reports that none to few (0-3) occurrences are appropriately protected and
managed, stating, "Wakulla Springs is a state park, but even it is unable to provide adequate
protection to the aquifer in which this crayfish lives." This species is also known from Emerald
Sink, Apalachicola National Forest, where it is a Sensitive Species, but this provides only
discretionary protection.
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 941

 www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2007. Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park
Unit Management Plan. Available online at
http://www.floridaenergy.org/parks/planning/parkplans/EdwardBallWakullaSpringsStatePark.pdf.
Last accessed December 3, 2009.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Franz, Richard (Dick). Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611. 352/392-1721; SUNCOM 622-1721.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. and D. B. Means. 1972. Two new troglobitic crayfishes (Decapoda, Astacidae)
from Florida. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 84(46):393-410.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. H.H. Hobbs III, and M.A. Daniel. 1977. A review of the troglobitic decapod
Crustaceans of the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 244: 1-183.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389.
U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Regional Forester Sensitive Species, Regions 8 And 9. Available
online at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480093cd9&dispositi
on=attachment&contentType=pdf. Last accessed June 30, 2009.
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 942

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus pallidus
Common Name:
Pallid Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern
Range:
According to NatureServe (2008), Procambarus pallidus has an estimated range of 250-1000
square km (about 100-400 square miles). It is restricted to Florida,occurring along the upper
Suwannee River and some tributaries (lower Withlacoochee and lower Santa Fe rivers), as well as
in some sinkholes that probably connect to them. It can be found in Alachua, Columbia, Gilchrist,
Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, and Suwannee counties.
Habitat:
Deyrup and Franz (1994) report that this cavernicolous species is associated with groundwater
habitats in caves that are not as heavily enriched with organic debris as those that attract members
of the cavernicolous lucifugus complex. Divers have reported that this species is most strongly
associated with caves that have high flow in newly emerging karst areas, particularly along the
upper Suwannee River area. The crayfish commonly ventures out into the lighted portions of
'bluehole' sinks. NatureServe (2008) reports that for P. pallidus, the occupied water is usually
clear, but in one instance it was "coffee colored."
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates 6 - 80 populations of the Pallid Cave crayfish. There are at least 82
known caves, but many of these may be interconnected.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled. Florida lists it as a Species of Greatest
Conservation Need. It is ranked as vulnerable by the American Fisheries Society (Taylor et al.
2007). P. pallidus was a Federal C-2 Candidate Species until that list was abolished.
Habitat destruction:
Concerning threats to this species, NatureServe (2008) states: "This species is potentially
threatened by pollution of the aquifer. Reported major crayfish kills in spring caves along the
upper Suwannee River may reflect pollution events. The species is impacted by urban
development, groundwater pollution and human disturbance. A large number were killed by a flood
from an unconfined aquifer (Abell et al., 2007). Another site is threatened by the construction of
a proposed industrial park (Abell et al., 2007). Some of the caves are listed as being good caves
for diving and this will cause disturbance to the species. "
According to Deyrup and Franz (1994) "P. pallidus may be sensitive to toxic chemicals, which
may have been responsible for major crayfish kills reported by divers in spring caves in the upper
Suwannee River basin."
Streever (1995) found that following the 1991 P. pallidus decimation at Peacock Springs,
Suwannee County, “recently collected census data are not significantly different from data
collected before the 1991 kill (Paired t-test, P gt 0.1). However, crayfish numbers have not
returned to their pre-1991 levels in the cave passage where the highest crayfish density occurred

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 943

 before the kill. Also, the scarcity of small ( lt 1.5 cm total length) crayfish suggests that the return
to pre-1991 levels may reflect dispersal of animals from inaccessible portions of the cave and
not replacement of crayfish through reproduction.”
According to Walsh (2001): “Perhaps the most serious potential threat to Florida’s hypogean and
spring faunas is ground-water pollution and/or saltwater intrusion as land surface is developed and
aquifer resources are increasingly tapped. Streever (1992, 1995) reported on a kill and post-kill
recovery of the troglobitic Santa Fe Cave Crayfish (Procambarus erythrops) and three
troglophiles that may have been due to physicochemical changes associated with flushing of
contaminants and/or Suwannee River water during a flood event. In recent years, there have been
notable increases in contaminants and nutrients within some Florida ground-water sources (e.g.,
Katz and others, 1999). Eutrophication in spring habitats may result in greater algal growth,
increased turbidity, and physicochemical and biological changes that can be detrimental to native
species.”
The Florida Department of Community Affairs (2008) states that Florida’s freshwater springs system is
threatened. Major causes of problems in springs include landscaping, development and urban sprawl,
water consumption, dumping in sinkholes, agriculture and livestock, golf courses and other recreation.
Dickson and Franz (1980) state that: “Because troglobitic organisms have evolved in relatively constant
environments, many of their adaptations may be highly specialized allowing existence only under
prevailing ambient conditions. The reduction of O2 consumption and energy turnover of gill tissues
reported in this study gives evidence of the highly specialized nature of physiological and biochemical
adaptations in troglobitic organisms. Because of these adaptations, troglobitic species may be
susceptible to subtle changes in water quality.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Deyrup and Franz (1994) state that "[m]any cave sites where this species has been collected are
currently protected within county and state parks along the Suwannee and
Santa Fe rivers." These sites remain vulnerable to recreational impacts and groundwater pollution.
No existing mechanisms adequately protect this species.
Other factors:
This species is threatened by groundwater pollution (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Dickson, G. W. and R. Franz. 1980. Respiration Rates, ATP Turnover And Adenylate Energy
Charge In Excised Gills Of Surface And Cave Crayfish. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology Vol. 65A p. 375.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 944

 Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Franz, R., and J. A. Bauer. 1983e. Cave Site Report: Mirkwood Sink, Suwannee County, Florida.
Unpublished report to Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
Franz, R., and J. A. Bauer. 1983f. Cave Site Report: Goat Sink, Suwannee County, Florida.
Unpublished report to Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Franz, Richard (Dick). Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611. 352/392-1721; SUNCOM 622-1721.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. H.H. Hobbs III, and M.A. Daniel. 1977. A review of the troglobitic decapod
Crustaceans of the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 244: 1-183.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Streever, W.J. 1995 . Recovery of the cave crayfish (Decapoda: Cambaridae) population in
peacock Springs, Florida? Brimleyana v. 22 pp, 61-65.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 945

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus pictus
Common Name:
Black Creek Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Tthis species is found in northeastern Florida, principally in the Black Creek (including North and
South forks) and Etoniah Creek drainages in Clay, Duval, and Putnum counties. It is also found in
one additional small stream in Duval County (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
NatureServe (2008) reports this species is found in cool, flowing, tannin-stained headwater
streams and larger tributaries. According to Deyrup and Franz (1994) "this colorful crayfish
inhabits cool, flowing, tannic-stained streams where it hides by day in submerged detritus, tree
roots, and vegetation. At night, it is found crawling on the sandy bottoms of streams. Its coloration
fits the background colors of the sand and detritus."
Populations:
The Black Creek crayfish has been found in three stream systems: Black and Etoniah creeks, and a
small stream near Ft. Caroline (NatureServe 2008). There have been more than 30 occurrences,
mostly in Black Creek. Burgess and Franz (1978) include headwaters and tributaries of Black
Creek in Florida. Potential gene flow probably occurs among most or all sites within each system.
Status:
Procambarus pictus is endemic to small region of northeastern Florida, with all occurences are
restricted to two or possibly three drainages. Current populations are viable, but all are threatened
by heavy development pressure in this region. The NatureServe (2008) state status of this species
is imperiled. It was a Candidate 2 species under the Federal ESA when that list was maintained. It
is listed as threatened by the American Fisheries Society and as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Florida lists the Black Creek crayfish as a Species of Special Concern due to "significant
vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, human
disturbance, or human exploitation which, in the foreseeable future, may result in its becoming a
threatened species unless appropriate protective or management techniques are initiated or
maintained."
Habitat destruction:
The Black Creek crayfish is threatened by habitat destruction caused by development, alteration of
drainage patterns, pollution, and runoff including siltation (NatureServe 2008). All of these
activities pose potential, and in some cases, real threats. Studies by Franz and Franz (1979) and
Brody (1990) report apparent extirpation of species at some disturbed sites.
Camp Blanding habitat is threatened by timber harvest, while habitat within Jennings State Forest
is at risk from offsite development, feral hogs, and human disturbance
(Pranty 2002).
Franz and Franz (1979) reported that this species is of special concern due to its absence from
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 946

 most of Black Creek where development increased siltation, nutrients, and channelization while
reducing stream flow.
Brody (1990) failed to observe the species at several of the Franz and Franz (1979) collection
sites. At these sites, development has been intensive.
Deyrup and Franz (1994) warn that "the species is susceptible to siltation, pollution, and other changes
in water quality. With the expansion of Orange Park and Middleburg, urbanization is reaching
southward along State Route 21. A toll road and an associated highspeed rail system have been proposed
to come through the heart of the Black Creek country, which could potentially impact water quality and
the long-term rural aspect of this area." Deyrup and Franz (1994) state that the species is threatened by
expanding urbanization and by chemical spills associated with mining activities.
According to Dickson and Franz (1980): “Because troglobitic organisms have evolved in relatively
constant environments, many of their adaptations may be highly specialized allowing existence only
under prevailing ambient conditions. The reduction of O2 consumption and energy turnover of gill
tissues reported in this study gives evidence of the highly specialized nature of physiological and
biochemical adaptations in troglobitic organisms. Because of these adaptations, troglobitic species may
be susceptible to subtle changes in water quality.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are a few (1-3) occurrences protected by state or federal ownership (NatureServe 2008).
The species is widespread in parts of the Black Creek drainage that lie within the Camp Blanding
Training Site and presumbably Jennings State Forest as well. Camp Blanding is a military base, and
most of its streams are relatively pristine.
Etoniah Creek runs through Etoniah Creek State Forest (8769 acres), which was acquired by the
state in 1996 as part of the Cross Florida Greenway Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL)
project (Florida Dept. Ag. 2009). The quality of habitat on Etoniah Creek is superb, as seen from
the list of endangered species found there. "Species found on the (Etoniah Creek State) forest that
are listed as endangered, threatened or species of special concern include eastern indigo snake,
gopher tortoise, Florida scrub jay and red-cockaded woodpecker. Etonia rosemary (Conradina
etonia) is an endangered plant that was first described in 1991 and is found mostly in scrub habitat.
Etoniah Creek State Forest contains the only known population of Etonia rosemary found on
public land." Id.
This species is protected from collection in Florida, but no mechanisms adequately protect its
habitat.
References:
Brody, R.W. 1990 (unpublished ms) Status of habitat and populations of Procambarus pictus in
the North Fork of Black Creek. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Fla.
Burgess, G.H. and R. Franz. 1978. Zoogeography of the aquatic fauna of the St. Johns River
comments on adjacent peninsular faunas. The American Midland Naturalist, 100(1): 160-170.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 947

 Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Dickson, G. W. and R. Franz. 1980. Respiration Rates, ATP Turnover And Adenylate Energy
Charge In Excised Gills Of Surface And Cave Crayfish. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology Vol. 65A p. 375.
Florida Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry. 2009. Website for Etoniah Creek State
Forest, http://www.fl-dof.com/state_forests/etoniah_creek.html. Last accessed April 13, 2009.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Franz, R. and L. M. Franz. 1979. Distribution, habitat preference and status of populations of the
Black Creek crayfish, Procambarus (Ortmannicus) pictus (Decapoda: Cambaridae) Florida Sci.
42:13-18.
Franz, R. and S.E. Franz. 1990. A review of the Florida crayfish fauna, with comments on
nomenclature, distribution, and conservation. Florida Scientist, 53: 286-296.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Pranty, B. 2002. The Important Bird Areas of Florida: 2000-2002. Florida Audubon Society,
Available online at www.audubon.org/bird/iba/florida/entire_ms.pdf. Last accessed April 13,
2009.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 948

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus pogum
Common Name:
Bearded Red Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
Procambarus pogum is endemic to Mississippi (NatureServe 2008). The range of this species is
very limited, with only two locations identified within 10 miles of each other.
Habitat:
NatureServe (2008) states that this species is found in relatively simple burrows in flatwoods,
near margins; sometimes found in riparian areas that are near small streams.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species has an extremely limited population, with less than
15 indviduals identifiied in only two locations. One of these locations is not specific enough to
identify again.
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this very rare species.
Status:
This critically imperiled (S1) species has very restricted habitat and an extremely small total
population. It is listed as endangered by the American Fisheries Society and as vulnerable by the
IUCN. In the state of Mississippi, it is listed as a Tier 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need,
meaning it is "in need of immediate conservation action and/or research because of extreme
rarity, restricted distribution, unknown or decreasing population trends, specialized habitat needs
and/or habitat vulnerability. Some species may be considered critically imperiled and at risk of
extinction/extirpation." The Bearded Red crayfish was formerly considered a Candidate 2 species
by USFWS until that list was abolished. Fitzpatrick (2000) identified Procambarus pogum as
endangered.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) states that this species faced minor impacts from cotton farming until the
1950's. This land is now mostly pasture, making the crayfish vulnerable to impacts from runoff
and potentially trampling of habitat and/or organisms (Fitzpatrick pers. comm. 1995 cited in
NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No populations of this very rare species are appropriately protected (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Fitzpatrick, J. F., Jr. 1992. Rare and endangered species of Mississippi: Volume I: Crawfishes
and Shrimps. Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 949

 Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1978. Systematics of the crawfishes of the Hagenianus Group of the genus
Procambarus ,subgenus Girardiella (Decapoda, Cambaridae). Tulane Stud. Zool. Bot. 20: 57-98.
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr.. The conservation status of Mississippi crawfishes; Crustacea: Decapoda:
Cambaridae. Proceedings of the Louisiana Academy of Sciences. January 1, 2000 at p. 25.
Fitzpatrick,, J.F., Jr. 1976. The taxonomy and biology of the prairie crawfishes,
PROCAMBARUS HAGENIANUS (Faxon) and its allies. In James W. Avault, Jr. ed., Freshwater
Crayfish. Papers from the 2nd international symposium on freshwater crayfish, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana: Division of continuing Education, Louisiana State University. pp. 381-391.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Williams, A.B., L.G. Abele, D.L. Felder, H.H. Hobbs, Jr., R.B. Manning, P.A. McLaughlin, and
I.P. Farlante. 1989. A List of Common and scientific names of decapod crustaceans from
America north of Mexico. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 17: 77 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 950

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus regalis
Common Name:
Regal Burrowing Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern
Range:
The Regal Burrowing crayfish is known only from the Ouachita and Red River drainages in
Nevada, Howard, and Sevier counties, Arkansas (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
P. regalis inhabits simple burrows in colonies that may be extremely large, in southwestern
Arkansas (Hobbs and Robison 1988).
Populations:
It is known from eight sites, and future work will most likely reveal additional localities. It can
occur in 'extremely large' colonies (Robison and Allen 1995).
Status:
This species is ranked by NatureServe (2008) as imperiled in Arkansas (G1S2S3) and under
review (SNR) in Texas. AFS lists this species as Vulnerable (Taylor et al 2007).
Habitat destruction:
According to the Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (2008), P. regalis is threatened by chemical
alteration and habitat destruction due to road construction, and recommends protecting this
species from construction activities and herbicide applications.
NatureServe (2010) states that it is likely to be undergoing localized declines due to urbanization,
alterations to the hydrological regimes and water pollution.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. 2008. Aquatic and Terrestrial Crayfish Report. Available online
at www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/08crayfish.pdf, last accessed October 1, 2009.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. and H. W. Robison. 1988. The crayfish subgenus Girardiella (Decapoda:
Cambaridae) in Arkansas, with the descriptions of two new species and a key to the members of
the gracilis group in the genus Procambarus. Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington 101(2):391-413.
Robison, H.W. and R.T. Allen. 1995. Only in Arkansas: A Study of the Endemic Plants and
Animals of the State. University of Arkansas Press: Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 951

 Scientific Name:
Procambarus reimeri
Common Name:
Irons Fork Burrowing Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Endangered

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Irons Fork Burrowing crayfish has a range less than 100-250 square km (less than about 40 to
100 square miles). According to NatureServe (2008), all localities are in the Ouachita River
basin in Polk Co, AR.
Habitat:
P. reimeri digs relatively simple burrows in sandy clay soil in roadside ditches, low wet seepage
areas, and riparian areas.
Populations:
According to NatureServe (2008), Procambarus reimeri is known from only six localities, where
only 20 adults and 99 juveniles were identified. Thus, there are estimated to be less than 5
populations and less than 1000 total individuals extant.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled. It is rated as vulnerable by the
IUCN and as endangered by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
This crayfish is vulnerable to habitat degradation and occurs in a limited area (Crandall et al.
2009). According to the Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (2008), P. reimeri faces threats from
habitat destruction or conversion caused by forestry activities and road construction, and could be
harmed by toxins/contaminants used in forestry activities.
Procambarus reimeri occurs on the Mena and Oden Ranger Districts of the Ouachita National
Forest (U.S. Forest Service 2008). The Forest Service is planning to cut over 2000 acres of this
forest including 300 acres of clearcuts, and construct or reconstruct 11.8 miles of roads in the
range of this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Procambarus reimeri is found on the Menae Ranger District, where it is a USFS Sensitive Species
(USFS 2008), but this designation provides only discretionary protection, and the FS is planning a
large timbercut including a clearcut and roadbuilding in this species' habitat.
Other factors:
This crayfish is threatened by pollution from logging and forestry activities.
References:
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. 2008. Aquatic and Terrestrial Crayfish Report. Available online
at www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/08crayfish.pdf, last accessed March 31, 2009.
Crandall, K.A., H.W. Robison and J.E. Buhay. 2009. Avoidance of extinction through
nonexistence: the use of museum specimens and molecular genetics to determine the taxonomic

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 952

 status of an endangered freshwater crayfish. Conserv Genet 10:177–189.
Hobbs, H. H. 1979. A new crayfish from the Ouachita River Basin in Arkansas (Decapoda:
Cambaridae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 92(4): 804-811.
Hobbs, H. H., Jr. and H. W. Robison. 1988. The crayfish subgenus Girardiella (Decapoda:
Cambaridae) in Arkansas, with the descriptions of two new species and a key to the members of
the gracilis group in the genus Procambarus. Proceedings of the Biological Society of
Washington 101(2):391-413.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
McLaughlin, P.A., D.K. Camp, M.V. Angel, E.L. Bousfield, P. Brunel, R.C. Brusca, D. Cadien,
A.C. Cohen, K. Conlan, L.G. Eldredge, D.L. Felder, J.W. Goy, T. Haney, B. Hann, R.W. Heard,
E.A. Hendrycks, H.H. Hobbs III, J.R. Holsinger, B. Kensley, D.R. Laubitz, S.E. LeCroy, R.
Lemaitre, R.F. Maddocks, J.W. Martin, P. Mikkelsen, E. Nelson, W.A. Newman, R.M.
Overstreet, W.J. Poly, W.W. Price, J.W. Reid, A. Robertson, D.C. Rogers, A. Ross, M. Schotte,
F. Schram, C. Shih, L. Watling, G.D.F. Wilson, and D.D. Turgeon. 2005. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 31: 545 pp.
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Biological Evaluation for Big Valley Watershed, Polk County,
Arkansas. Available online at
http://gis.fs.fed.us/r8/ouachita/projects/Mena_Big_Valley/biological_evaluation.doc. Last
accessed October 11, 2009.
U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Biological Evaluation for Big Valley Watershed. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/ouachita/projects/Mena_Big_Valley/biological_evaluation.doc. Last
accessed July 28, 2009.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 953

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus avernus
Common Name:
Avernus Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This beetle is found only in the Avernus Cave, Rockingham County, Virginia (Holsinger and
Culver 1988).
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting low level of
available food.
Populations:
There is only one population of this species, in a single cave (Holsinger and Culver 1988). Only
one individual plus the type series have been collected and identified, and it is uncommon.
Population Trends:
Population size is very low, and trend is unknown.
Status:
This beetle is critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008) and is a Virginia Species of Concern.
Habitat destruction:
The primary threat to this beetle is commercial recreation in the lone cave where it occurs, but
the only known locality of the beetle within the cave is not part of the commercial tour route
(NatureServe 2008).
In general, cave beetles are threatened by toxic chemical spills, pollution, trash dumping,
vandalism, disruption of nutrient input, alteration of entrances, or the creation of new entrances
(FWS 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Avernus Cave is privately owned, current owners are conservation minded, according to
NatureServe (2008). The cave is gated and protected.
Other factors:
This species is potentially threatned by Diflubenzuron or other biocides applied against gypsy
moths (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Arnett, Jr., Ross H., ed. 1983. Checklist of the Beetles of North and Central America and the
West Indies. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville, Florida. 24 P. (Pertains to all subsequent
fasicle updates as well).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 954

 Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C.,Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Douglas, H.H. 1964. Caves of Virginia. Virginia Caves Commission.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, John R. 1975. Description of Virginia Caves. Virg inia Division of Mineral
Resources Bulletin 85. Charlottesvi lle.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Hubbard, D. 1995. Unpublished annotated list of natural heritage collections.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.
Valentine, J. Manson. 1945. Speciation and raciation in Pseudanophthalmus (cavernicolous
Carabidae). Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts Sci. 36:631-672.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 955

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis
Common Name:
Coleman Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This beetle occurs in a single cave in Montgomery County, Tennessee (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This beetle may be dependent on nutrient input from gray bat guano.
Populations:
One occurrence was extant in 1999 (NatureServe 2008). Population size is unknown and is likely
low.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is stable in the short term. Given loss of the gray bat
colony and other changes, this population has probably declined over the last century.
Status:
USFWS considers this species extant based on a 1999 observation (NatureServe 2008). It is
probably limited to a single cave. It has some protection especially from direct disturbances, but
threats may exist and there has been past habitat alteration and loss of former nutrient input from
bat guano. It is a Tennessee Species of Greatest Conservation Need, is ranked as critically
imperiled by NatureServe (2008), and is a Candidate with Listing Priority of 11 under the Federal
ESA.
Habitat destruction:
This beetle is somewhat protected from habitat degradation because it occurs in a cave owned by
The Nature Conservancy, but its habitat remains vulnerable to pollution (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to NatureServe (2008), this species has some protection under a Cooperative
Management Agreement with The Nature Conservancy at its only known occurrence (USFWS,
2004).
Other factors:
One of the primary threats to this beetle is loss of nutrient input from gay bat guano. It is
threatened by any factor which threatens gray bats.
References:
Arnett, Jr., Ross H., ed. 1983. Checklist of the Beetles of North and Central America and the
West Indies. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville, Florida. 24 P. (Pertains to all subsequent
fasicle updates as well).
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1959a. New cave beetles (Carabidae, Trechini) from Tennessee and Kentucky. J.
Tenn. Acad. Sci. 34:5-30.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 956

 History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota. Elsevier
Science Subterranean Biota (Ecosystems of the World Series). (Available on line.)
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Review of
species that are candidates or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened: Notice of
Findings of Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal
Register 69: 24876-24904 (04 May 2004).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2003. Candidate assessment and listing priority
assignment form for Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis Barr, Coleman Cave beetle,
Pseudanophthalmus fowlerae Barr, Fowler's Cave beetle, Pseudanophthalmus insularis Barr,
Insular Cave beetle, Pseudanophthalmus tiresias Barr, Soothsayer Cave beetle,
Pseudanophthalmus paulus Barr, Noblett's cave beetle. Unpublished document.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 957

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus cordicollis
Common Name:
Little Kennedy Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
P. cordicollis is endemic to Wise County, Virginia (Holsinger and Culver 1988).
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting a low level of
available food (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
The Little Kennedy Cave beetle has been found in only one cave to date (Holsinger and Culver,
1988). NatureServe (2008) estimates fewer than 1000 individuals exist. It was collected and/or
observed in low numbers.
Population Trends:
According to NatureServe (2008), there does appear to be a stable, or at least extant population
based on a recent (1995) observation.
Status:
Psuedanophthtalmus cordicollis is endemic to one cave in Wise County, Virginia (NatureServe
2008). Given the fragility of cave habitats and the known utilization of this cave, it is ranked as
critically imperiled. It is a Virginia Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
Habitat destruction:
The cave inhabited by P. cordicollis may be used for recreational spelunking (NatureServe 2008).
According to the U.S. Forest Service (2004), P. cordicollis is found within the 5th Level HUC
Watersheds where Federal Oil and Gas development may occur. This species is also threatened by
mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The Little Kennedy Cave is privately owned (NatureServe 2008). No existing regulatory
mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates no.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 958

 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C. 1981. Pseudanopthalmus from Appalachian Caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): The
Englhardti Complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Douglas, H.H. 1964. Caves of Virginia. Virginia Caves Commission.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, John R. 1975. Description of Virginia Caves. Virg inia Division of Mineral
Resources Bulletin 85. Charlottesvi lle.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Hubbard, D. 1995. Unpublished annotated list of natural heritage collections.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal
notice of review. Federal Register, Department of the Interior 54(4): 554-579.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.
U.S. Forest Service. 2004. Revised Land and Resources Management Plan, Final Environmental
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 959

 Impact Statement, Chapter 3, Forest Health and Protection. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8//gwj/forestplan/feischap/feis_ch3b.pdf. Last accessed February 10, 2010.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 960

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus egberti
Common Name:
New River Valley Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This beetle is found in only two caves in Giles County, VA, approximately five kilometers apart
(Holsinger and Culver 1988).
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting a low level of
available food.
Populations:
This beetle is known from two caves and eight individuals (Holsinger and Culver, 1988).
Status:
Pseudanophthalmus egberti is known from only two caves and has not been seen since 1958.
However, surveys have been limited so if the habitat is intact the population may persist.
(NatureServe 2008). It is a Virginia Species of Concern, and is critically imperiled (NatureServe
2008).
Habitat destruction:
Caves inhabited by P. egberti may be used for recreational spelunking (NatureServe 2008). This
species may also be threatened by general threats to cave beetles including toxic chemical spills,
pollution, trash dumping, vandalism, disruption of nutrient input, alteration of entrances, or the
creation of new entrances (FWS 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 961

 Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C.,Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Hubbard, D. 1994. Unpublished annotated list of natural heritage collections, 1989-1994. 14pp.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal
notice of review. Federal Register, Department of the Interior 54(4): 554-579.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 962

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus hirsutus
Common Name:
Cumberland Gap Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This beetle is also known as the Lee County cave beetle. According to NatureServe (2008), the
range of this species is less than 100-250 square km (less than about 40 to 100 square miles). It
is found in only four caves (two of which are connected and are considered one occurrence) in
two adjacent counties of Virginia and Tennessee. Less than 20 kilometers separates the most
distant sites.
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting low level of
available food.
Populations:
As reported in NatureServe (2008) there are fewer than 5 populations with likely far less than
1000 individuals of P. hirsutus, as only a few individuals are known. It is found in four caves to
date (Holsinger and Culver 1988) (two of these are connected and are considered one
occurrence). All occurrences are in the Cumberland Plateau physiographic province of Virginia
and Tennessee. Only seven individuals plus the type series have ever been collected.
Population Trends:
While NatureServe (2008) reports a short term trend of severely to rapidly declining (decline of
30 to greater than 70 percent), stating that trend cannot be determined from available data.
Status:
Pseudanophthalmus hirsutus has been found in only a few localities and only a few individuals
have ever been identified (NatureServe 2008). Given the fact that some threats exist and the
known sites are in relatively close proximity to one another, this species is ranked as critically
imperiled in both Tennessee and Virginia. It is a Tennessee Species of Greatest Conservation
Need, and a Virginia Species of Concern.
Habitat destruction:
The caves where this species occurs may be used for recreational spelunking. One entrance of the
connected caves (Cudjos Cavern) was used as a commercial cave in the past, but is now managed
by Cumberland Gap National Historic Park. The other entrance (Cumberland Gap Saltpetre Cave)
is vertical (ca. 75 foot drop) and receives little caving traffic. Indian Cave receives the most
traffic currently of the three Virginia sites (NatureServe 2008).
This beetle may be threatened by pollution from mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005).
This species is also threatened by general threats to cave beetles including toxic chemical spills,

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 963

 pollution, trash dumping, vandalism, disruption of nutrient input, alteration of entrances, or the
creation of new entrances (FWS 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The two connected caves where this species occurs and a third collection site are within one mile
of each other and all are within Cumberland Gap National Historical Park boundary (NatureServe
2008). Ownership of the Tennessee site is unknown.
References:
Arnett, Jr., Ross H., ed. 1983. Checklist of the Beetles of North and Central America and the
West Indies. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville, Florida. 24 P. (Pertains to all subsequent
fasicle updates as well).
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C. 1981. Pseudanopthalmus from Appalachian Caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): The
Englhardti Complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, Thomas C.,Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Hubbard, D. 1996. Unpublished annotated list of natural heritage collections.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 964

 Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.
Valentine, J. M. 1931. New cavernicole Carabidae of the subfamily Trechinae Jeannel. J. Elisha
Mitchell Scientific Society 46:247-258..
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 965

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus hubbardi
Common Name:
Hubbard's Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
Pseudanophthalmus hubbardi is endemic to a single cave in Page County, Virginia (Holsinger and
Culver 1988).
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting a low level of
available food.
Populations:
Hubbard's Cave beetle is found in only one cave to date (Holsinger and Culver, 1988). Likely very
few exist.
Status:
P. hubbardi is known from only one cave with known potentially destructive activities (tours)
according to NatureServe (2008). It is a Virginia Species of Concern, and is classified as
critically imperiled.
Habitat destruction:
This beetle's habitat is threatened by recreation. Hubbard's Cave is a major commercial tour cave
(NatureServe 2008). Most of the passage in the cave is part of the commercial tour route. This
species may also threatened by general threats to cave beetles including toxic chemical spills,
pollution, trash dumping, vandalism, disruption of nutrient input, alteration of entrances, or the
creation of new entrances (FWS 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which protect this species. Cave access is restricted
to guided tourists, and Hubbard's Cave is designated as a national natural landmark (NatureServe
2008).
References:
Arnett, Jr., Ross H., ed. 1983. Checklist of the Beetles of North and Central America and the
West Indies. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville, Florida. 24 P. (Pertains to all subsequent
fasicle updates as well).
Barber, H. S. 1928. Two new cave beetles related to Anophthalmus pusio Horn. J. Wash. Acad.
Sci. 18:195-196.
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 966

 Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C.,Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Hubbard, D. 1996. Unpublished annotated list of natural heritage collections.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 967

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus hubrichti
Common Name:
Hubricht's Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
P. hubrichti is endemic to Russel County, Virginia (Holsinger and Culver, 1988).
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting a low level of
available food.
Populations:
This species has been found in only one cave to date (Holsinger and Culver, 1988). NatureServe
(2008) estimates fewer than 1000 individuals.
Population Trends:
A 1991 observation may indicate some stability in the population (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
Very few specimens have ever been seen, according to NatureServe (2008). It is a Virginia
Species of Concern, classified as critically imperiled by NatureServe (2008). It was a Federal C2
Candidate species until that list was abolished.
Habitat destruction:
This beetle may be threatened by recreation, as Hubricht's Cave may be used for recreational
spelunking (NatureServe 2008).
This beetle may be threatened by pollution from mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005).
This species is also threatened by general threats to cave beetles including toxic chemical spills,
pollution, trash dumping, vandalism, disruption of nutrient input, alteration of entrances, or the
creation of new entrances (FWS 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species. Hubricht's Cave is privately owned
(NatureServe 2008).
References:
Arnett, Jr., Ross H., ed. 1983. Checklist of the Beetles of North and Central America and the
West Indies. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville, Florida. 24 P. (Pertains to all subsequent
fasicle updates as well).
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 968

 American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C.,Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Buhlmann, K.A. 1992. Natural Heritage Inventory: Select Troglobitic Cave Beetles;
Pseudanophthalmus hubrichti, P. holsingeri & P. nelsoni. Natural Heritage Technical Report
#92-29. Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Richmond,
VA. 9pp.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.
Valentine, J. Manson. 1948. New anophthalmid beetles from the Appalachian region. Geol.
Survey Ala. Mus. Pap. 27:1-20.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 969

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus intersectus
Common Name:
Crossroads Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The Crossroads Cave beetle is known from only two caves in Bath County, Virginia (Holsinger
and Culver 1988).
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting low level of
available food.
Populations:
This beetle is known from only two caves and is extremely rare where it occurs, with only seven
individuals collected and identified to date.
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown due to extremely low population size.
Status:
This beetle is critically imperiled and is known from few individuals at only two caves which lack
protection and are extremely fragile (NatureServe 2008). It is a Virginia Species of Concern, and
it was a Federal C-2 Candidate species until that list was abolished.
Habitat destruction:
This beetle's habitat is threatened by recreational spelunking (NatureServe 2008). In general, cave
beetles are threatened by toxic chemical spills, pollution, trash dumping, vandalism, disruption of
nutrient input, alteration of entrances, or the creation of new entrances (FWS 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The caves inhabited by P. intersectus are privately owned (NatureServe 2008). No regulatory
mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Arnett, Jr., Ross H., ed. 1983. Checklist of the Beetles of North and Central America and the
West Indies. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville, Florida. 24 P. (Pertains to all subsequent
fasicle updates as well).
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 970

 associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C.,Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Hubbard, D. 1994. Unpublished annotated list of natural heritage collections, 1989-1994. 14pp.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 971

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus limicola
Common Name:
Maddens Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This beetle is known from only three caves in Shenandoah county, Virginia (Holsinger and Culver
1988), within approximately eight kilometers of each other.
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting a low level of
available food.
Populations:
According to NatureServe (2008), this species has fewer than 5 populations with less than 1000
total individuals. It is known from only three caves (Holsinger and Culver 1988).
Status:
P. limicola is known from only three locations and hasn't been seen since 1962 (NatureServe
2008). despite a lack of recent surveys however, if the habitat quality persists, the populations
may also persist. It is a Virginia Species of Concern and is ranked as critically imperiled by
NatureServe (2008).
Habitat destruction:
Caves inhabited by P. limicola may be used for recreational/commercial spelunking (NatureServe
2008). This species may also be threatened by general threats to cave beetles including toxic
chemical spills, pollution, trash dumping, vandalism, disruption of nutrient input, alteration of
entrances, or the creation of new entrances (FWS 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The cave inhabited by Maddens Cave beetle is privately owned (NatureServe 2008). No existing
regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Arnett, Jr., Ross H., ed. 1983. Checklist of the Beetles of North and Central America and the
West Indies. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville, Florida. 24 P. (Pertains to all subsequent
fasicle updates as well).
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 972

 Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C.,Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 973

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus montanus
Common Name:
Dry Fork Valley Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
Pseudanopthalmus montanus is known only from the following four West Virginia caves: Bennett
Cave; Cave Hollow-Arbogast System; Lambert Cave, Tucker County; and Rich Mountain Cave,
Randolph County.This range may expand as additional caves are surveyed.
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting low level of
available food.
Populations:
This beetle is known from only four caves in two counties in West Virginia. Population was
estimated at less than 1,000 individuals by the West Virginia Natural Heritage Program in January
1991.
Population Trends:
This species is assumed stable as long as there are no major changes in cave habitats.
Status:
P. montanus is located in only four caves in West Virginia (NatureServe 2008). Three of the caves
are located in close proximity and are therefore vulnerable to localized destructive events. Its
status in West Virginia is critically imperiled.
Habitat destruction:
The three cave systems in Tucker County are concentrated in a small area, and would be highly
vulnerable to a localized destructive event, according to NatureServe (2008). Rich mountain Cave
in Randolph County is located near a quarry. This species, or its prey may be vulnerable to
changes in water quality and/or quantity. Any land use practices that negatively impact
groundwater quality or hydrology may be a threat to populations (Culver, pers. comm. cited in
NatureServe 2008). Gating may be a threat since this beetle preys on species that rely on
transitory organic matter from sporadic cave visitors (Culver, pers. comm. cited in NatureServe
2008).
According to Lewis (2001), P. montanus (and other Pseudanophthalmus cave beetles) face many
threats. Specifically:
"Unfortunately, contaminants may be introduced with equal ease, with devastating effects on cave
animals. Potential contaminants include (1) sewage or fecal contamination, including sewage
plant effluent, septic field waste, campground outhouses, feedlots, grazing pastures or any other
source of human or animal waste; (2) pesticides or herbicides used for crops, livestock, trails,

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 974

 roads or other applications; fertilizers used for crops or lawns ; (3) hazardous material
introductions via accidental spills or deliberate dumping, including road salting. Habitat alteration
due to sedimentation is a pervasive threat potentially caused by logging, road or other
construction, trail building, farming, or any other kind of development that disturbs groundcover.
Sedimentation potentially changes cave habitat, blocks recharge sites, or alters flow volume and
velocity. Pesticides and other harmful compounds like PCB’s can adhere to clay and silt particles
and be transported via sedimentation. Impoundments may detrimentally affect cave species.
Flooding makes terrestrial habitats unusable and creates changes in stream flow that in turn causes
siltation and drastic modification of gravel riffle and pool habitats. Stream back-flooding is also
another potential source of introduction of contaminants to cave ecosystems."
"Smoke is another potential source of airborne particulate contamination and hazardous material
introduction to the cave environment. Many caves have active air currents that serve to inhale
surface air from one entrance and exhale it from another. Potential smoke sources include
campfires built in cave entrances, prescribed burns or trash disposal. Concerning the latter, not only may
hazardous chemicals be carried into the cave environment, but the residue serves as
another source of groundwater contamination. Numerous caves have been affected by quarry
activities prior to acquisition. Roadcut construction for highways passing through national forest
land is a similar blasting activity and has the potential to destroy or seriously modify cave
ecosystems. Indirect effects of blasting include potential destabilization of passages, collapse and
destruction of stream passages, changes in water table levels and sediment transport . Oil, gas or
water exploration and development may encounter cave passages and introduce drilling mud and
fluids into cave passages and streams. Brine produced by wells is extremely toxic, containing high
concentrations of dissolved heavy metals, halides or hydrogen sulfide. These substances can
enter cave ecosystems through breach of drilling pits, corrosion of inactive well casings, or
during injection to increase production of adjacent wells. Cave ecosystems are unfortunately not
immune to the introduction of exotic species. Out-competition of native cavernicoles by exotic
facultative cavernicoles is becoming more common, with species such as the exotic millipede Oxidus
gracilis affecting both terrestrial and aquatic habitats. With the presence of humans in caves comes an
increased risk of vandalism or littering of the habitat, disruption of habitat and trampling of fauna,
introduction of microbial flora non-native to the cave or introduction of hazardous materials (e.g., spent
carbide, batteries). The construction of roads or trails near cave entrances encourages entry." (Internal
citations omitted).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The entrances to the Cave Hollow-Arbogast System are in the Monongahela National Forest and
protected by eight-foot, chain-link fences (NatureServe 2008). The primary concern of the
management program is to control access. Casual visitors are discouraged, and most visits are
limited to ones with a scientific or conservation purpose. It is a U.S. Forest Service Regional
Forester Sensitive Species, but this protection is discretionary and may not protect water quality in
the cave from activities permitted on the forest such as logging and oil and gas drilling.
Lewis (2001) reports that "[t]he existing (1985) Monongahela Land and Resource Management
Plan does not provide management direction for caves although they are being considered in the
Forest Plan revision currently underway. A Forest Plan Amendment in progress for Threatened and
Endangered Species will include management for the caves on the forest."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 975

 The Revised Monongahela National Forest Plan (USFS 2006) requires the following management
for caves:
"Cave entry during closed periods for scientific study and observation may be permitted by Forest
Supervisor’s written approval and permit from USFWS or delegated authority. Gates or fences
installed at cave entrances shall allow free entry and exit by TEP species and shall not restrict
normal airflows. Gate installation that disturbs a cave feature or floor must have an archaeological
survey prior to disturbance. Gates and fences shall be monitored and maintained. Base monitoring
frequency on past cave visits, access, and potential for disturbance. Maintenance and repair of
gates shall be undertaken within a reasonable time frame from vandalism discovery."
References:
Arnett, Jr., Ross H., ed. 1983. Checklist of the Beetles of North and Central America and the
West Indies. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville, Florida. 24 P. (Pertains to all subsequent
fasicle updates as well).
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Culver, Dr. David C., Department of Biology, American University, 4400 Mass. Ave. NW,
Washington DC, 20016 202-885-2180
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, J.R., R.A. Barody, and D.C. Culver. 1976. The invertebrate cave fauna of West
Virginia. West Virginia Speoleological Survey Bulletin, 7: 86 pp.
Kane, T. C., and T. L. Poulson. 1976. Foraging by cave beetles: spatial and temporal
heterogeneity of prey. Ecology 57:793-800.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 976

 Lewis, J.J. 2001. Conservation Assessment For Dry Fork Valley Cave Beetle
(Pseudanophthalmus Montanus). Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. Available
online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/ca-overview/docs/insect_Pseudanophthalmus_montanusDryForkValleyCaveBeetle.pdf. Last accessed January 24, 2010.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.
US Forest Service. 2006. Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
Available online at
http://www.wvhighlands.org/mnf_fp/Land_and_Resource_Management_Plan.pdf. Last accessed
January 24, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 977

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus pontis
Common Name:
Natural Bridge Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This beetle occurs in a single cave in Rockbridge County, Virginia (Holsinger and Culver 1988), it
was not found in nearby caves that have been surveyed.
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting a low level of
available food.
Populations:
Found in only one cave to date (Holsinger and Culver 1988), this species is known from only five
individuals (Barr 1965).
Population Trends:
Alterations to the cave have likely been detrimental to the population, but trend is not quantified
because this species is known from few individuals (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
P. pontis is critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008) and is a Virginia Species of Concern. It is
endemic to one cave which is known to have been altered and has not been reported since 1965
(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
The Natural Bridge Cave has been drastically altered in the past by a private owner (NatureServe
2008). This cave may be used for recreational spelunking in addition to commercial operations.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species which occurs in a single privately owned
cave.
References:
Arnett, Jr., Ross H., ed. 1983. Checklist of the Beetles of North and Central America and the
West Indies. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville, Florida. 24 P. (Pertains to all subsequent
fasicle updates as well).
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 978

 Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C.,Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Hubbard, D. 1994. Unpublished annotated list of natural heritage collections, 1989-1994. 14pp.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 979

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus potomaca
Common Name:
South Branch Valley Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G3
Range:
P. potomaca is known from five to six caves in three adjoining counties of West Virginia and
Virginia. The caves (Holsinger and Culver, 1988) span approximately 50 kilometers (NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting a low level of
available food (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that less than 5 populations with fewer than 1000 individuals of this
species exist. P. potomaca is known from five to six caves in three adjoining counties of West
Virginia and Virginia. Nominate subspecies are known from three to four caves (one in West
Virginia and two to three in Virginia).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in West Virginia and imperiled in
Virginia. It is a Virginia Species of Concern,and a West Virginia Species of Greatest Conservation
Need.
Habitat destruction:
Although one site occupied by P. potomaca is closed due to visitation pressures, there remain
threats to water quality via pollution of ground water sources (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The entrance to one Virginia cave occupied by this species is closed (NatureServe 2008). No
regulatory mechanisms currently protect this species.
References:
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 980

 Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C.,Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.
Valentine, J. M. 1932. A classification of the genus Pseudanophthalmus (fam. Carabidae) with
descriptions of new species and notes on distribution. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Science
Society. 48:261-280.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 981

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus praetermissus
Common Name:
Overlooked Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The Overlooked Cave Beetle is endemic to Scott County, Virginia (Holsinger and Culver 1988).
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting a low level of
available food (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
This species is known from four individuals that were collected from one cave (Holsinger and
Culver 1988).
Status:
P. praetermissis is endemic to one cave and hasn't been seen in 20 years, but no recent surveys are
known (NatureServe 2008). It is ranked as critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008), and is a
Virginia Species of Concern.
Habitat destruction:
The cave inhabited by the Overlooked cave beetle may be used for recreational spelunking
(NatureServe 2008). This species is also threatened by pollution from mountaintop removal coal
mining (EPA 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The cave occupied by this species is privately owned (NatureServe 2008). No existing regulatory
mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 982

 engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C. 1981. Pseudanopthalmus from Appalachian Caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): The
Englhardti Complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Culver, David C. 1991. Appalachian Cave Communities Report to the Eastern Heritage Task
Force of The Nature Conservancy. Department of Biology, American University, Washington,
D.C.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal
notice of review. Federal Register, Department of the Interior 54(4): 554-579.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 983

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus sanctipauli
Common Name:
Saint Paul Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The St. Paul Cave beetle is endemic to Russell and Scott Counties, Virginia. Known localities are
separated by about 13 kilometers (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting a low level of
available food.
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that P. sanctipauli has been found in only two locations to date, with
only five individuals ever collected and identified.
Status:
This species is limited to two localities in fragile cave habitat (NatureServe 2008). It is a Virginia
Species of Concern classified as critically imperiled by NatureServe (2008).
Habitat destruction:
Caves inhabited by Saint Paul Cave beetles may be used for recreational spelunking (NatureServe
2008). This species is also threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
St. Paul Cave is privately owned, and no regulatory mechanisms currently protect this species.
References:
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 984

 Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C. 1981. Pseudanopthalmus from Appalachian Caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): The
Englhardti Complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, Thomas C.,Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal
notice of review. Federal Register, Department of the Interior 54(4): 554-579.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 985

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus sericus
Common Name:
Silken Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
Pseudanophthalmus sericus is endemic to Scott County, Virginia (Holsinger and Culver 1988).
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting a low level of
available food.
Populations:
This beetle occurs in a single cave (Holsinger and Culver, 1988). Nearby caves are inhabited by P.
thomasi. Only ten individuals have ever been collected and identified.
Population Trends:
This beetle was not found during three surveys in the 1990's.
Status:
P. sericus is endemic to one cave and hasn't been seen in 30 years, according to NatureServe
(2008). Given the fragility of cave habitat, it is ranked as critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008).
It is a Virginia Species of Concern.
Habitat destruction:
Caves inhabited by the Silken Cave beetle may be used for recreational spelunking (NatureServe
2008). This species is also threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to NatureServe (2008), the cave occupied by P. sericus is privately owned. The
landowner expressed some desire to protect this cave in the past. The primary threat to this species
may be pollution from outside the cave, particularly from surface coal mining. No existing
regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 986

 Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C. 1981. Pseudanopthalmus from Appalachian Caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): The
Englhardti Complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Buhlmann, K.A. 1992. Natural Heritage Inventory: Select Troglobitic Cave Beetles;
Pseudanophthalmus hubrichti, P. holsingeri & P. nelsoni. Natural Heritage Technical Report
#92-29. Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Richmond,
VA. 9pp.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Hubbard, D. 1994. Unpublished annotated list of natural heritage collections, 1989-1994. 14pp.
Hubbard, D. 1997. Unpublished annotated list of natural heritage collections.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal
notice of review. Federal Register, Department of the Interior 54(4): 554-579.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 987

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 988

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus thomasi
Common Name:
Thomas' Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
All known localities of Psuedanophthalmus thomasi are within about 10 kilometers of each other
in Scott County, Virginia (Holsinger and Culver 1988).
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting a low level of
available food (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Thomas' Cave beetle is only known from two localities (Holsinger and Culver 1988). Only eight
individuals have ever been collected and identified.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled, and it is a Virginia Species of
Concern.
Habitat destruction:
This species is threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005). It is possibly
threatened by occasional spelunking at one site, but the owner restricts access making outside
pollution the greatest threat to this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Both caves occupied by this species are privately owned. The owner restricts access to BlairCollins Cave to speleological studies only. No regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 989

 (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C. 1981. Pseudanopthalmus from Appalachian Caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): The
Englhardti Complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Hobson, C.S. 1999. A Natural Heritage Inventory of three cave beetles of the genus
Pseudanophthalmus and an assessment of their respective habitats. Natural Heritage Technical
Report 99-01. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural
Heritage, Richmond, VA. 6 pp.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal
notice of review. Federal Register, Department of the Interior 54(4): 554-579.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 990

 Scientific Name:
Pseudanophthalmus virginicus
Common Name:
Maiden Spring Cave Beetle
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This beetle is endemic to one cave in Tazewell County, VA (Holsinger and Culver 1988). Nearby
caves are inhabited by different species of cave beetles.
Habitat:
Beetles of this genus typically occur in the twilight zone or deeper in or on moist soil, often near
streams or drip areas. They probably burrow some, especially larvae. They are often found under
rocks or debris (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Species of this genus seem to occur as sparse populations, probably reflecting a low level of
available food.
Populations:
This species occurs in very low abundance in a single cave (Holsinger and Culver 1988). Ten
surveys of Hugh-Young Cave have been conducted by J. R. Holsinger and his cave biology classes
between 1976 and 1998 with no additional observations or collections. Other surveys by J. R.
Holsinger have not been successful in locating this species. Only two specimens have ever been
collected (Barr 1960, 1981) and identified despite multiple surveys.
Status:
Pseudanopthalmus virginicus is apparently endemic to one cave and is very rare in that cave
(NatureServe 2008). It hasn't been seen since 1966 despite frequent survey efforts and may be
extinct. However, the condition of the cave is good, so there is good potential for eventual
rediscovery, particularly through the use of baiting techniques. It is a Virginia Species of Concern
and is ranked as critically imperiled by NatureServe (2008).
Habitat destruction:
There is a stream in the Maiden Spring Cave that may be susceptible to pollution from ground
water sources (NatureServe 2008).
This species is also threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to NatureServe (2008), Maiden Spring Cave is privately owned. The owner is extremely
restrictive on access, and permits entry by a few individuals only for speleological studies. No
regulatory mechanisms protect this species, which is primarily threatened by pollution from
sources outside the cave including coal mining.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 991

 References:
Arnett, Jr., Ross H., ed. 1983. Checklist of the Beetles of North and Central America and the
West Indies. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville, Florida. 24 P. (Pertains to all subsequent
fasicle updates as well).
Barr, T. C. and S. B. Peck. 1965. Occurrence of a troglobitic Pseudanophthalmus outside of a
cave (Coleoptera: Carabidae). American Midland Naturalist 73:73-74.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1965. The Pseudanophthalmus of the Appalachian Valley (Coleoptera: Carabidae)
American Midland Naturalist 73:41-72.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1979. The taxonomy, distribution, and affinities of Neaphaenops, with Notes on
associated species of Pseudanophthalmus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). American Museum Novitates
no. 2682: 20 pp.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1980. New species groups of Pseudanophthalmus from the central basin of
Tennessee (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Trechinae). Brimleyana No. 3: pp. 85-96.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 1981. Pseudanophthalmus from Appalachian caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): the
engelhardti complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Barr, T. C., Jr. 2004. Classification and checklist of the genus Pseudanophthalmus Jeannel:
(Coleoptera, Carabidae, Trechinae). Special Publication of the Virginia Museum of Natural
History No. 11. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. 52 pp.
Barr, Thomas C. 1960. A New Genus of Cave Beetle (Carabidae: trechini) From Southwestern
Virginia with a Key to the Genera of the Trechini of North America North of Mexico. The
Coleopterists' Bulletin. 14: 65-70.
Barr, Thomas C. 1981. Pseudanopthalmus from Appalachian Caves (Coleoptera: Carabidae): The
Englhardti Complex. Brimleyana 5:37-94.
Elliott, William R. 1998. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota.Subterranean
Biota (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science. Electronic
preprint at www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/biospeleology/preprint.htm. 29 pages.
Holsinger, J.R. and D.C. Culver. 1988. The invertebrate cave fauna of Virginia and a part of
eastern Tennessee: zoogeography and ecology. Brimleyana, 14:1-162.
Holsinger, John R. 1985. Annotated List of Significant Caves and Karst Areas in Virginia.
Unpublished Report for the Virginia Cave Board.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversityoriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online.
Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 992

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of
Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 74
Fed.Reg. 57804.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 993

 Scientific Name:
Pseudemys nelsoni pop. 1
Common Name:
Florida Red-bellied Turtle - Florida Panhandle
G Rank:
T2
Range:
The range of this turtle encompasses less than 100-250 square km (about 40-100 square miles) in
the Florida Panhandle. It is found in the lower Apalachicola/Chipola River drainage and
associated delta and offshore islands, disjunct from the main population in peninsular Florida
(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This turtle occurs in ponds, lakes, and sluggish portions of rivers. It uses adjacent upland habitat
for nesting, typically in sunny locations. It potentially uses alligator nests for nesting
(NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are only six known occurrences of this turtle, and local populations are thought to be small.
Total population size is estimated at 250-2500 individuals. It occurs in a relatively small area that
is disjunct from the main population of the species (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
No data on population trend are available.
Status:
Pseudemys nelsoni pop. 1 is imperiled in Florida (T2S2) (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
Because there are only six known localities of this turtle, it is especially vulnerable to habitat
loss. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (2001) reports that the Chipola River is threatened by
habitat degradation from pollution, siltation, impoundment, water withdrawal, drought, and other
disturbances, including logging, livestock grazing, and development
(http://www.myfwc.com/docs/FWCG/chipola_slabshell.pdf).
Overutilization:
This turtle may be harvested for use as food by turtle trappers (NatureServe 2008). Given its small
overall population size, limited distribution, and life-history strategy which depends on adult
survivorship, any level of collection makes populations vulnerable to extirpation. Studies have
shown that the removal of long-lived, slow-growing animals with life history traits designed for
replacement reproduction spread out over the course of a lifetime results in population decline
(Congdon et al. 1993, 1994). The elimination of individuals from populations that are already
threatened because of habitat degradation is an additive impact on already stressed populations.
Buhlmann and Gibbons (1997) state that even presently abundant species are of concern because
of the vast numbers of freshwater turtles being removed from the wild and shipped to other
countries. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission reports that demand for
freshwater turtles is increasing. In recent decades heavy commercial harvest of southeastern
freshwater turtles has occurred to meet foreign demand for turtles for use as meat, pets, and in
traditional medicine. Over 13 million adult turtles were being sold annually in Asian countries by

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 994

 the late 1990s. Even limited take of turtles is unsustainable because of the key role of large adult
female turtles in sustaining populations
(http://myfwc.com/docs/CommissionMeetings/2009/2009_Apr_FreshwaterTurtle.pdf).
Disease or predation:
Predation, especially in conjunction with drought, poses a serious threat for this turtle.
Nonriverine populations may be extirpated by predation during drought (NatureServe 2008). At the
local level, the effects of predation can be severe, especially on small populations or populations
that are stressed by other factors. Raccoons are known to prey heavily on both eggs and young
turtles, and fish crows depredate nests (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect this turtle. It lacks state status. It occurs
on St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge in Franklin County.
References:
Congdon J.D., A.E. Dunham, R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and
demographics of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): Implications for conservation and
management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7: 826– 833.
Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1994. Demographics of common snapping
turtles: Implications for conservation and management of long-lived
organisms. American Zoologist 34:397-408.
Congdon J.D., A.E. Dunham, R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and
demographics of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): Implications for conservation and
management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7: 826– 833.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Freshwater turtle trade in Florida
and recommendations for regulatory action.
http://myfwc.com/docs/CommissionMeetings/2009/2009_Apr_FreshwaterTurtle.pdf
Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2001. http://www.myfwc.com/docs/FWCG/chipola_slabshell.pdf
Jackson, D. R. (Dr.). Senior Research Zoologist, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 1018
Thomasville Road, Suite 200-C, Tallahassee, FL 32309. Tel: (850) 224-8207 x 212. E-mail:
<djackson@fnai.org>

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 995

 Scientific Name:
Pseudemys rubriventris
Common Name:
Northern Red-bellied Cooter
G Rank:
G5

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The northern red-bellied cooter, Pseudemys rubriventris, is a species of freshwater turtle
endemic to the eastern United States. It is found in Delaware, Washington, D.C., Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia
(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This turtle primarily inhabits herbaceous wetlands or riparian areas, and large, deep bodies of
water: medium-sized to large rivers with low to moderate flow gradients, marshes, and ponds or
lakes (NatureServe 2008). Though it is a freshwater species, it may also be found in brackish
waters. P. rubriventris prefers habitat with soft benthic substrate and plentiful aquatic vegetation
(NatureServe 2008). The northern red-bellied cooter is terrestrially active in spring and fall, and
may utilize sand dune habitat adjacent to its preferred aquatic habitat for burrowing as it aestivates
in extremely hot conditions (NatureServe 2008). Both in terms of terrestrial and aquatic habitat,
this species relies on fallen logs, large rocks, or other debris for diurnal basking (NatureServe
2008). This species hibernates at the bottom of ponds or other bodies of water during the winter
months; in Massachusetts, it is reportedly active between March and October (USFWS 1981).
Ecology:
P. rubriventris reaches sexual maturity between the ages of 5-9 years (USFWS 1981, DeGraaf and
Rudis 1983). Females lay clutches of 8-20 eggs in June or July, nesting in soft soil or sandy
habitat, generally within 100 m of water; incubation time is between 10 and 15 weeks (US FWS
1981). After hatching, hatchlings often overwinter in the nest and emerge in spring. Juveniles are
essentially omnivorous in most locations, consuming invertebrates, plant material, and fish, while
adults are almost exclusively herbivorous (Ernst and Barbour 1972, Mitchell 1994).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are many occurrences of P. rubriventris in the core of its
range (Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey), but that populations are small elsewhere.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is experiencing significant decline.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists the Northern Red-bellied Cooter as imperiled in Pennsylvania and West
Virginia, vulnerable in North Carolina, apparently secure in Washington, D.C., New Jersey, and
Virginia, and secure in Delaware and Maryland. Its status is under review in New York.
It is state- listed as threatened in West Virginia.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 996

 Habitat destruction:
Populations along the Delaware River in Pennsylvania have declined because of various effects of
industrial expansion, wetland drainage, water pollution, and mosquito control efforts (pesticide
contamination, Ernst et al. 1994).
Residential development threatens this species in parts of its range; road construction is particularly
devastating to slow-moving species that range across the landscape as P. rubriventris does because of
their vulnerability to road mortality. The loss of mature individuals is devastating to turtle populations
because of their slow maturation, and on-road mortality has been linked to significant changes in
population structure in some turtle species (Steen and Gibbs 2004, Gibbs and Shriver 2002).
Overutilization:
This species was widely collected and marketed as food in the late 19th century, causing the
decline of several populations in the East (PA NHP 2009).
Disease or predation:
The northern red-bellied cooter has several natural predators, which, under normal circumstances,
do not exert significant pressure on turtle populations. However, residential and agricultural
development fragment natural habitat, exposing populations of P. rubriventris to increased nest
predation by raccoons, foxes, and other egg predators (PA NHP 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though this species is listed as threatened or endangered in a few states, these designations do not
afford the northern red-bellied cooter any substantial regulatory protection. The Massachusetts
population (subspecies P. r. bangsi) is federally endangered, but this does not in any way protect
the remainder of the population.
Other factors:
Mercury contamination may threaten this species in some locations, though its dietary habits make
it less likely to bioaccumulate high levels of mercury than other more carnivorous turtle species
(Bergeron et al. 2007).
This species’ life history, as characterized by slow maturation and low recruitment of juveniles,
makes it especially vulnerable to steep population declines; populations grow slowly, and do not
rebound easily from the loss of mature individuals (Nelson et al. 2009, Gibbs and Shriver 2002).
Isolated incidents like the one reported by Saba and Spotila (2003), in which an oil spill affected
several freshwater turtle species in a wildlife refuge in southeastern Pennsylvania, may have lasting
consequences for reproduction and recruitment that were not explored by this study.
References:
Bergeron, C., Husak, J., Unrine, J., Romanek, C., and W. Hopkins. 2007. Influence of feeding
ecology on blood mercury concentrations in four species of turtles. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry 26: 1733-1741.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1981. Plymouth red-bellied turtle recovery plan. Region 5, 13 pp.
DeGraaf, R. M., and D. D. Rudis. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of New England. Habitats and
natural history. Univ. Massachusetts Press. vii + 83 pp.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 997

 Ernst CH, Lovich JE, Barbour RW. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian
Institute Press, Washington, DC.
Gibbs, J.P., and W.G. Shriver. 2002. Estimating the effects of road mortality on turtle
populations. Conservation Biology 16: 1647-1652
Mitchell JC. 1994. The Reptiles of Virginia. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 11, 2009).
Nelson, D., Langford, G., Borden, J., and W. Turner. 2009. Reproductive and hatchling ecology
of the Alabama red-bellied cooter Pseudemys alabamensis: implications for conservation and
management. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 8: 66-73.
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program. 2009. Redbelly turtle (Pseudemys rubriventris).
Accessed online August 17, 2009
<<http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/factsheets/11525.pdf>>
Saba, V.S., and J.R. Spotila. 2003. Survival and behavior of freshwater turtles after rehabilitation
from an oil spill. Environmental Pollution 126: 213-223.
Steen, D.A., and J.P. Gibbs. 2004. Effects of roads on the structure of freshwater turtle
populations. Conservation Biology 18: 1143-1148.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 998

 Scientific Name:
Pseudobranchus striatus lustricolus
Common Name:
Gulf Hammock Dwarf Siren
G Rank:
T1
Range:
The Gulf Hammock Dwarf Siren is known only from the coastal area of Levy and Citrus counties
in Florida. The reported range is very small and is impinged upon by other Pseudobranchus taxa
(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This salamander's habitat consists of wetlands within hydric hardwood hammock (Gulf Hammock)
areas, including stagnant bogs and decaying organic mucks associated with weedy cypress and
flatwoods ponds, ditches, and small floodplain lakes (NatureServe 2008). This species is
associated with cypress (Taxodium sp.) or gum (Nyssa sp.) ponds and other shallow, acidic,
flatwood wetlands, floating mats of frog's-bit (Limnobium spongium), decaying bottom
vegetation, and the soft, mucky soils of pond margins (Le Conte 1824, Goin and Crenshaw 1949,
Moler and Kezer 1993, in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Ecology:
Conant and Collins (1991) describe dwarf sirens as small, aquatic eel-like salamanders with tiny
forelegs and external gills the size of which depends upon water temperature and other conditions.
Dwarf Sirens prey upon aquatic invertabrates and insects (Conant and Collins 1991). Eggs are
deposited singly or in small bunches among aquatic vegetation (Noble 1930), and clutch size is
unknown (AmphibiaWeb 2009). Ashton and Ashton (1988) indicate Pseudobranchus larvae make
take 2 yr to reach sexual maturity (AmphibiaWeb 2009). Potential predators of this species
include Southern banded water snakes (Nerodia fasciata), black swamp snakes (Seminatrix
pygaea), mud snakes (Farancia abacura), and crayfish snakes (Regina sp.), various species of
wading birds, and predaceous fishes. Predation levels are likely intensified when dwarf sirens are
concentrated by falling water levels (AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Populations:
Number of extant populations and population size are unknown for this species, which has not
been detected in more than 40 years (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
This salamander has declined to rarity or is possibly extirpated (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Gulf Hammock Dwarf Siren is critically imperiled in Florida (S1) (NatureServe 2008). It
lacks legal protective status.
Habitat destruction:
The Gulf Hammock region has been severely degraded by commercial forestry (NatureServe 2008).
Populations of Gulf Hammock Dwarf Siren have been lost as wetland habitats have been reduced
through drainage of surface waters associated with residential, agricultural, and silvicultural
development (AmphibiaWeb 2009). The Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission reports that the
Gulf Hammock Dwarf Siren’s lake habitat in Florida is highly threatened by altered hydrologic regime,
altered landscape mosaic, altered species composition, and deterioration of water quality

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 999

 (http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Natural_Lake.pdf). The salamander’s swamp habitat
is threatened by conversion to agriculture, conversion to housing and urban development, groundwater
withdrawal, insufficient fire regime, roads, water withdrawal and diversion, and eutrophication
(http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Bay_Swamp.pdf). The Service has reported that this
salamander’s habitat faces multiple threats including land conversion, logging, grazing, water diversion,
pollution, and rising sea levels (Simons et al. 1989).
There has been widespread destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of imperiled amphibian habitats
in the Southeast (Vial and Saylor 1993, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994 in LaClaire 1997, p. 314). Dodd
(1997) states: “The integrity of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats is important to amphibian survival,
even among species that never venture beyond a single habitat type. Furthermore, the various life history
stages (eggs, larvae, young, adults) may be differentially susceptible or sensitive to environmental
perturbations . . . Although vast areas have been cleared in the Southeast for agriculture, industry, and
urban use, there is virtually no assessment of the landscape effects of land conversion on amphibian
populations. It seems evident, however, that habitat changes (see papers in Hackney et al. 1992, Boyce
and Martin 1993), and with them changes in aquatic amphibian populations, have been enormous” (p.
177-8).
Habitat loss and degradation obviously negatively affects amphibian populations. LaClaire (1997) states:
“There is a growing body of work documenting (amphibian) population declines on sites where habitats
have been degraded or destroyed (Vickers et al. 1985, Enge and Marion 1986, Ash 1988, Dodd 1991,
Raymond and Hardy 1991, Petranka et al. 1993, Phelps and Lancia 1995, Means et al. 1996). . . Clearly,
when the habitat of a given population is destroyed, that population has gone or will shortly go extinct.
Many species may be unable to recolonize areas after local extinctions, especially when unsuitable
habitat exists between the extinct population and extant populations” (p. 325-326).
Logging is detrimental for both aquatic and terrestrial amphibian habitat because it eliminates shade,
increases soil and water temperature, alters stream flow, increases sedimentation, reduces the input of
coarse woody debris and organic matter into streams, reduces forest floor litter (especially if litter is
piled and burned), reduces soil moisture, reduces and eliminates burrows and hiding places, and destroys
wetlands. Logging also frequently involves the use of herbicides which can be detrimental for
amphibians (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Logging is known to decrease
amphibian abundance and reproductive success (Dodd 1997, LaClaire 1997). LaClaire (1997) states:
“Habitat destruction and degradation resulting from timbering operations may create problems for longterm survival of imperiled amphibians (Kramer et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1993)” (p. 327).
Aquatic amphibian populations are threatened by habitat destruction and water pollution from coal
mining activities in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, and by
phosphate mining in Florida (Wallace et al. 1992, LaClaire 2007).
Dodd (1997) states: “In many instances, mining occurs directly through small streams or ponds, and
mine tailings are pushed into the larger rivers. . . Mining not only destroys aquatic amphibian habitats
outright, it also results in toxic pollution, decreased pH, and siltation of streams and rivers” (p. 180).
Gore (1983) showed that low pH and high conductivity due to mining negatively affect the distribution
of larval Desmognathus salamanders in streams on the Cumberland Plateau (in Dodd 1997).
Road construction and repair and traffic degrade amphibian habitat. Roads can divide breeding locations
from overwintering sites and increase mortality for migrating adults and dispersing juveniles, and can
disrupt metapopulation dynamics and lead to population isolation, and light and noise from roads can
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1000

 disrupt breeding and feeding behaviors (Dodd 1997). Dodd (1997) states: “Transportation corridors,
especially roads, can have serious deleterious effects on amphibian populations (Langton 1989). Road
construction can lead to habitat destruction in both terrestrial and aquatic environments, and can
negatively alter breeding habitats through increased siltation. Increased siltation can lead to increased
amphibian mortality because of its own secondary effects. For example, nearly all aquatic life was
eliminated downstream after U.S. HWY 441 was rebuilt in 1963 in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park” (p. 180).
Overutilization:
Because the Gulf Hammock Dwarf Siren is extremely rare, it is very vulnerable to collection.
Amphibians are collected from the wild for use as food, pets, and for the biological and medicinal
supply markets (AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/exploitation.html). Dodd
(1997) states: “Collecting specimens for the pet trade or biological laboratories probably has had
some impact on local (Southeast) amphibian populations, but few data are available” (p. 183).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect this species, and no occurrences are
appropriately protected (NatureServe 2008). Much of this species' range is in the Gulf Hammock
Wildlife Management Area. NatureServe (2008) recommends protecting any habitat whiich is
found to harbor this species, and considering state and federal listing.
Other factors:
Dodd (1997) lists rarity as a potential threat to the Gulf Hammock Dwarf Siren.
Other factors which threaten imperiled amphibian populations in the Southeast include water
pollution from acidification, toxins, and endocrine disrupting chemicals, reduced prey availability,
climate change, UV-B radiation, invasive species, and synergistic effects from these and other
threats. The salamander’s swamp habitat is threatened by conversion to agriculture, conversion to
housing and urban development, groundwater withdrawal, insufficient fire regime, roads, water
withdrawal and diversion, and eutrophication
(http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Bay_Swamp.pdf).
Acidification of soils and water bodies is detrimental for amphibians. Acidification of amphibian
habitat can result from acid precipitation and from acid mine drainage. Acid disrupts ion balance in
both terrestrial and aquatic lifestages of amphibians, impairs chemosensory reception, and inhibits
larval feeding (Dodd 1997). Embryos and larvae are particularly sensitive to decreased pH.
Terrestrial salamanders avoid acidified soils. Acidification also has indirect effects which can kill
embryos, larvae, and adults by interfering with egg development, disrupting trophic interactions,
and inducing chronic environmental stress. Low pH also makes amphibians more susceptible to
deleterious effects from heavy metals and increased UV-B radiation (Dodd 1997).
Environmental toxins pose a threat to amphibians in the Southeast due to lethal and sub-lethal
effects which can include mortality, decreased growth rate, behavioral and developmental
abnormalities, lowered reproductive success, weakened immunity, and hermaphroditism (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to toxic
substances because of the permeable nature of their skin. A wide range of chemical stressors are
known to negatively affect amphibians including heavy metals, pesticides, phenols, carbon
tetrachloride, nitrogen based fertilizers, and road salt (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009). The

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1001

 presence of toxins can also make amphibians more susceptible to disease (Dodd 1997).
Amphibians are also threatened by endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment (eg. Hayes
et al. 2006). Dodd (1997) states: “Amphibians are likely to be especially sensitive to the action of
endocrine mimics because they are in close direct contact with chemicals in their environment,
and the amphibian skin and egg capsule are highly permeable. Because hormones normally
function in minute quantities and are vital to normal development, susceptibility to xenobiotics
could be devastating during the complex changes that occur during hormonally-induced amphibian
metamorphosis” (p. 182).
Toxins and other chemicals can also harm amphibians by reducing food availability. Dodd (1997)
states: “If species that are preyed upon by amphibians decline or disappear, amphibian populations
may be expected to follow suit. The use of pesticides and the influence of toxics, pH, and habitat
alteration all may be expected to affect amphibian prey populations” (p. 184).
Climate change poses a threat for amphibians because it will alter rainfall and temperature patterns
and affect soil moisture (Dodd 1997, Field et al. 2007). Amphibians are particularly sensitive to
minute changes in moisture and temperature, and changes in climate can affect breeding behavior,
reproductive success, and immune function (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ClimateChange.html). Amphibians which breed in temporary
ponds or in water bodies that are sensitive to changes in groundwater level are particularly
susceptible to climate change effects. Drought can lead to localized extirpation, which combined
with habitat fragmentation and impaired dispersal, can contribute to extinction (Dodd 1997).
References:
Amphibiaweb. 2009. University of California, Berkeley. http://amphibiaweb.org/
Conant, R. and J. T. Collins. 1991. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central
North America. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 450 pp.
Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1997. Imperiled amphibians: a historical persective. Pp. 165–200. In Benz, G.W.
and D.E. Collins (Eds.), Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication Number 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications,
Decatur, Georgia.
Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running and
M.J. Scott. 2007: North America. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 617-652.
http://www.ipccinfo.com/wg2report_north_america.php
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Bay Swamps.
http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Bay_Swamp.pdf
Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2008. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Natural Lakes.
http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Natural_Lake.pdf.
Hayes, T.B. et al. 2006. Pesticide Mixtures,Endocrine Disruption,and Amphibian Declines:Are
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1002

 We Underestimating the Impact?. Environmental Health Perspectives 114(1).
LaClaire, L.V. 1997. Amphibians in Peril: Resource Management in the Southeast. p. 307-321
In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern
Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and
Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1003

 Scientific Name:
Pteronotropis euryzonus
Common Name:
Broadstripe Shiner
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Vulnerable
Range:
The broadstripe shiner has a restricted range in tributaries of the middle Chattahoochee River
system of Georgia and Alabama near and below the Fall Line (Lee et al. 1980, Page and Burr
1991, Freeman and Albanese 2009, Boschung and Mayden 2004).
Habitat:
The broadstripe shiner occurs in small, clear or tannin-stained streams with moderate current, in
association with vegetation or logs (Lee et al. 1980, Page and Burr 1991, Boschung and Mayden
2004). It is generally found in headwaters (SFC and CBD 2010).
Populations:
Johnston (2004) notes that the broadstripe shiner has suffered a 70 percent reduction in its
distribution in Alabama because of habitat degradation in Uchee Creek, and that only eight
localities are known in Georgia. Boschung and Mayden (2004) show 23 localities in Alabama.
Population Trends:
The species has experienced a roughly 70 percent reduction in range in Alabama (Johnston 2004).
More specifically, in Uchee Creek between Auburn and Phoenix City broadstripe shiner have
experienced declines during the last 30 years, and may be further stressed as the region develops
in association with an influx of more personel at Fort Benning (SFC and CBD 2010). Populations
appear more stable in Georgia (SFC and CBD 2010).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists the broadstripe shiner as imperiled in both Georgia and Alabama and
vulnerable over all. Johnston (2004) list the species as of high conservation concern, Freeman
and Albanese (2009) list it as rare, and Jelks et al. (2008) list it as vulnerable based on the present
or threatened destruction, modification or reduction of habitat or range. Although it apparently
can be common in the small isolated reaches where it occurs (NatureServe 2008), the broadstripe
shiner remains at risk because of its limited distribution and sensitivity to habitat alteration.
Johnston (2004) observed that: "As a headwater stream specialist, populations in Alabama are
almost certainly isolated from Georgia populations, and recolonization opportunities may not
exist," adding that it is therfore "critical to protect species throughout its distribution." The
broadstripe shiner was formerly considered a C2 candidate for listing by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service before this category was abolished. At a meeting of the Southeastern Fishes
Council and CBD, there was tenative support for listing the broadstripe shiner as threatened based
on its status in Alabama (SFC and CBD 2010).
Habitat destruction:
Jelks et al. (2008) identify the present or threatened destruction, modification or reduction of
range as a factor in the broadstripe shiner being vulnerable. NatureServe (2008) cite information
that the shiner is "moderately threatened, mainly due to siltation that affects aquatic vegetation."
Johnston (2004) notes that the species has suffered a 70 percent distribution decline because of

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1004

 habitat degradation in Uchee Creek. Freeman and Albanese (2009) observe that "The major threat
to the survival of broadstripe shiners is water quality and habitat degradation in tributary streams
to the Chattahoochee River." Taken together, this information demonstrates the broadstripe
shiner is threatened by habitat degradation in a significant portion of range.
Water withdrawal, poor land management from agriculture, sod farms and pine conversion and
development encroachment are the major sources of habitat degradation on the Uchee (SFC and
CBD 2010). Expansion of Fort Benning poses an additional threat to the broadstripe shiner (Ibid.)
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are currently no efforts to protect or recover the broadstripe shiner and no populations are
known to be protected (NatureServe 2008).
Other factors:
Freeman and Albanese (2009) note that "restricted range and localized distributions further
contribute to the vulnerability of this species." This fish is threatened by water pollution, primarily
from siltation (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Boschung, H. T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Institute, Washington
DC.
Freeman, B. and B. Albanese. 2009. Account for Broadstripe Shiner Pteronotropis euryzonus.
Protected Animals of Georgia: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources
Division. Social Circle, Georgia. Accessed 12 April 2010. Available online at
www.georgiawildlife.com
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Johnston C. 2004. Broadstripe Shiner. In Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee and P.E.
O'Neil (eds.). Alabama Wildlife Volume Two: Imperiled Aquatic Mussels and Fihses. Unversity
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Johnston, C.E. 2004. Broadstripe shiner. In Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee and P.E.
O'Neil. Alabama Wildlife Volume Two: Imperiled Aquatic Mussels and Fihses. Unversity of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
SFC and CBD 2010. Meeting of the Southeastern Fishes Council and Center for Biological
Diversity April 5-9, 2010. Auburn, AL, Knoxville, TN and Raleigh, NC.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1005

 Scientific Name:
Pteronotropis hubbsi
Common Name:
Bluehead Shiner
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
DD - Data deficient

Range:
The bluehead shiner occurs west of the Mississippi River in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and
Texas, and occurred historically in Illinois. This fish is sporadically distributed in the lowlands of
the Red, Atchafalaya and Ouachita river systems in southern Arkansas and extreme southeastern
Oklahoma (Taylor and Norris 1992), extreme northeastern Texas, and Louisiana. Most
occurrences are in southern Arkansas and northern Louisiana. The apparent disjunction in the
range between Illinois and the nearest Arkansas population is likely due to the destruction of
much of the species’ habitat before it was described in 1954 (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This fish occurs in quiet backwater areas and pools with mud or mud-sand substrates in small to
medium-sized, sluggish streams and oxbow lakes. It is associated with tannin-stained water and
dense vegetation (Bailey and Robison 1978). In Illinois, it occurred in tannin-colored water along
the lake margins of a single lake, over mud, decaying plants and submerged logs, and also in a few
springs with dense submerged aquatic plants (Burr and Warren 1986). When disturbed, schools of
this fish seek cover in vegetation (Bailey and Robison 1978). In Louisiana, this fish has been
reported spawning in nests apparently built by warmouth sunfish among bald cypress roots in a
side bay off a bayou. This fish also may spawn among other woody plant roots, and may not always
use warmouth nests (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This species has numerous fish associates (Bailey and Robison 1978). Predators include two pike
(Esox spp.) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Adults have been detected only rarely
outside the breeding season (April-July) (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are 32 known sites for this species, but the number of distinct occurrences has not been
determined (NatureServe 2008). This fish is currently extant in only three river drainages. It is
likely under-sampled as no systematic range-wide search has been conducted due to the difficulty
of accessing its habitat. It is extirpated in Illinois, but a reintroduction attempt was made at Wolf
Lake in 1992, but apparently failed (Ranvestel and Burr 2002). Only one population is known
from Texas, at Caddo Lake. There are ten known locations in Louisiana but these may not all
represent distinct populations. In Oklahoma, there are two known locations. In Arkansas, it is
known from 18 collection stations in nine counties (NatureServe 2008).
The population at Caddo Lake in Texas is estimated to number in the thousands (Price 1992).
Populations of this species show high levels of geographic and temporal variability, and
conventional sampling methods can be ineffective in its densely vegetated habitat. Abundance
from collections in the Ouachita River and nearby backwaters has fluctuated drastically.
Collections from these sites from 1967-83 produced only 3 specimens, but 938 individuals were
collected from 1984-91, but then from 1992-1995, no individuals were detected (Ranvestel and
Burr 2002).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1006

 Population Trends:
Short-term trend information is unavailable for this species, but over the long-term it has
experienced a decline of 25-75 percent (NatureServe 2008). It is likely extirpated in Illinois
where it occurred historically at three locations but has not been detected since the mid-1970’s,
despite intensive sampling efforts (Ranvestel and Burr 2002). The Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission (2005) report that it is declining in Arkansas. The population in the Ouachita River
drainage in northeastern Louisiana expanded dramatically between 1983 and 1991, but wasn’t
detected at all from 1992-1995.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the bluehead shiner as extirpated in Illinois, critically imperiled in
Oklahoma and Texas, imperiled in Louisiana, and vulnerable in Arkansas. It is classified as
vulnerable by the American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al. 2008) due to habitat loss. It is listed by
the state of Texas as threatened, and by the state of Illinois as endangered, but it is likely
extirpated in Illinois. It is a Species of Special Concern in Arkansas and Oklahoma (Scharpf 2005).
Habitat destruction:
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (2005) reports that the bluehead shiner is threatened by
sedimentation and habitat destruction caused by resource extraction, channel alteration, and
forestry. This fish is threatened by the draining, filling, farming, and/or flooding of backwater
swamp habitat, by gravel removal, stream-channel alteration, and by construction of small
impoundments which block dispersal and migration (NatureServe 2008). Ranvestel and Burr
(2002) provide the following description of threats to this species’ habitat: “Habitat degradation
caused by anthropogenic disturbance is probably the greatest threat to the persistence of healthy
populations of P. hubbsi in the wild. In fact, Fletcher and Burr (1992) suggest that the large gap
between the P. hubbsi population in southern Illinois and the next closest population in Arkansas
is not due to lack of collecting in suitable habitat, as suggested by Bailey and Robison (1978), but
rather due to relatively recent habitat alteration. Swamp habitat is disappearing quickly in southern
Illinois (Phillippi et al. 1986), southeastern Missouri (Pfleiger 1997), western Kentucky (Burr
and Warren 1986), western Tennessee, and northeastern Arkansas (Robison and Buchanan 1988)
where P. hubbsi may have historically occurred. Many swamps have been channelized, dredged,
cleared, drained, and converted to agricultural crops (Fletcher and Burr 1992). Lowland streams
of the Ouachita River sytem, including the type locality of P. hubbsi in Arkansas, are threatened by
gravel removal operations (Robison and Buchanan 1988).” Jelks et al. (2008) list habitat loss as a
threat to this species.
Overutilization:
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (2005) reports that the bluehead shiner is threatened by
commercial harvest. Because of their striking breeding colors and rarity in the wild, P. hubbsi are
highly coveted in the aquarium trade. Overcollection of P. hubbsi from the wild, in conjunction
with their short lifespan, disjunct distribution, and already frail status, leave populations highly
vulnerable to decline (Scharpf 2002, Ravenstel and Burr 2002).
Disease or predation:
Bluehead shiners are heavily preyed upon in the wild, but the population effects of predation are
not known. Predatory fishes commonly co-occur with P. hubbsi, and may or may not have
noticeable negative effects on P. hubbsi populations. Fletcher and Burr (1992) documented P.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1007

 hubbsi larvae and adults inside the stomachs of pickerels (Esox americanus) and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides). Lemmons et al. (1997) suggest that predatory bowfin may exclude
bluehead shiners from certain habitats. Warren et al. (1991) suggest that predation possibly
contributed to the extirpation of this species in Illinois.
Populations of P. hubbsi can be heavily infested with parasites and disease. Necropsies of dead or
dying individuals from a wild population of P. hubbsi revealed that gills, fins, and body surfaces
were heavily infested with Lernaea cyprinacea, a copepod parasite. The gills of individuals were
also infected with a Trichodina- like ciliate. Some individuals had columnaris disease caused by
the bacterium Flexibacter columnaris. Within about two weeks, nine of 11 individuals placed in an
aquarium died from these afflictions (Burr and Heidinger 1987).
In conjunction with other threats, disease and predation could increasingly threaten wild
populations of this species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which adequately protect this species. It is listed as
endangered by Illinois, but is likely extirpated in the state. It is listed as threatened by the state of
Texas, but this designation does not confer substantial protection to the species or its habitat.
Ranvestel and Burr (2002) state that they do not know of any aquatic preserves within the range of
P. hubbsi that are designed especially to protect fish communities in swamp- like habitats. In
Oklahoma, there is an occurrence in the Little River National Wildlife Refuge.
Other factors:
The bluehead shiner is particularly vulnerable to catastrophic events due to its short life span,
limited distribution, and low genetic diversity (Warren et al. 1991). Populations of this fish
fluctuate widely, apparently in response to altered hydrologic conditions, making it vulnerable to
drought, flooding, and global climate change (Douglas 1992). Chronic and acute pollution events
also threaten this fish, and likely contributed to its apparent extirpation in Illinois (Ranvestel and
Burr 2002). In the 1970’s, train derailments spilled hundreds of pounds of acids and toxic
chemicals into the lake in Illinois where this fish formerly occurred (Smith 1979, Burr and
Warren 1986). In 1975, an accidental spill reduced the lake pH to 3.1, further threatening aquatic
life (Ranvestel and Burr 2002).
References:
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2005. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Aquatic Fish
Report Species Account. Accessed March 4, 2010 at:
http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/09b_fish.pdf
Bailey, R. M., and H. W. Robison. 1978. NOTROPIS HUBBSI, a new cyprinid fish from the
Mississippi River basin, with comments on NOTROPIS WELAKA. Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ.
Michigan 683:1-21.
Burr, B. M., and M. L. Warren. 1986. Status of the bluehead shiner (NOTROPIS HUBBSI) in
Illinois. Trans. Illinois Acad. Sci. 79:129-136.
Burr, B.M. and R.C. Heidinger. 1987. Biology and preliminary recovery plan for the endangered
bluehead shiner in Illinois. Report submitted to Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, Illinois

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1008

 Department of Conservation.
Douglas, N. H. 1992. Temporal variation in the abundance of NOTROPIS HUBBSI in the
Ouachita River drainage of northeast Louisiana. Abstract of paper presented at the 72nd Annual
Meeting of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, University of IL at
Urbana-Champaign, June 4-10, 1992.
Douglas, N. H., and R. J. Jordan. 2002. Louisiana's inland fishes: a quarter century of change.
Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings (43):1-10.
Fletcher, D. E. and B. M. Burr. 1992. Reproductive biology, larval description, and diet of the
North American bluehead shiner, NOTROPIS HUBBSI (CYPRINIFORMES: CYPRINIDAE),
with comments on conservation status. Icthyological Exploration of Freshwaters.
Herkert, J. R., editor. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of Illinois: status and
distribution. Vol. 2: Animals. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. iv + 142 pp.
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina. i-x + 854 pp.
Lemmons, R.P., M.J. Hood, and L.G. Hill. 1997. New Oklahoma localities for shortnose
gar (Lepisosteus platostomus), largescale stoneroller (Campostoma oligolepis), and bluehead
shiner (Pteronotropis hubbsi). Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 77: 125-126.
Mayden, R. L. 1989. Phylogenetic studies of North American minnows, with emphasis on the
genus Cyprinella (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). Univ. Kansas Museum Natural History
Miscellaneous Publication (80):1-189.
Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D.
Williams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Maryland. 386 pp.
Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Phillippi, M.A., B.M. Burr, and R.A. Brandon. 1986. A preliminary survey of the aquatic fauna of
the Cache River in Johnson and Pulaski counties, Illinois. Report
submitted to Illinois Department of Conservation. 252 pp.
Price, A. Texas Bilogical and Conservation Data System, 3000 South IH-35, Suite 100, Austin,
TX 78704. 512-912-7011. Personal communication.
Ranvestel, A.W. and B.M. Burr. 2002. Conservation Assessment for Bluehead Shiner
(Pteronotropis Hubbsi). USDA Forest Service Eastern Region, Shawnee National Forest.
Accessed March 4, 2010 at:
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1009

 http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/ca-overview/docs/fish_pteronotropis_hubbsiblueheadShiner.pdf
Robison, H. W., and T. M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press,
Fayetteville, Arkansas. 536 pp.
Scharpf, C. 2002. Pteronotropis – sailfin shiners. Cited in Ranvestel and Burr (2002).
Smith, P. W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana. 314 pp.
Taylor, C. M., and S. M. Norris. 1992. Notes on the reproductive cycle of NOTROPIS HUBBSI
(bluehead shiner) in southeastern Oklahoma. Southwestern Nat. 37:89-92.
Warren, M. L., Jr., B. M. Burr, and R. C. Heidinger. 1991. Final report. Year 1. Bluehead shiner
recovery plan: genetic profiles of potential donor populations. Submitted to Division of Natural
Heritage, Illinois Dept. of Conservation, Springfield, IL.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1010

 Scientific Name:
Ptilimnium ahlesii
Common Name:
Carolina Bishopweed
G Rank:
G1
Range:
This species occurs very sporadically in freshwater tidal marshes from the outer coastal plain of
southeastern North Carolina through South Carolina and into eastern Georgia (NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
This plant is found in freshwater tidal marshes.
Ecology:
The Carolina bishopweed flowers from June-August.
Populations:
Only three occurrences of this plant are currently known, one in North Carolina's Cape Fear River
marshes, one in Georgia's Savanna River, and one at the mouth of the Ashley-Cooper River near
Charleston, South Carolina (NatureServe 2008). It seems likely that at least a few other
occurrences may be present in nearby habitat. Population sizes are unknown.
Population Trends:
Trend information is not available for this species.
Status:
Only three disjunct occurrences of this species are known, and they are threatened by various
factors, particularly non-native species and water pollution. NatureServe (2008) ranks the
Carolina bishopweed as critically imperiled in North Carolina and possibly extirpated in Georgia
(occurrences not recently confirmed). It is not ranked in South Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
The Carolina bishopweed is threatened by habitat loss and degradation caused by the deposition of
dredge spoils and the intrusion of saltwater into freshwater tidal marshes caused by dredging,
channelization, or other anthropogenic alteration of local hydrology (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though one occurrence is found within the Savanna River National Wildlife Refuge, no regulatory
mechanisms adequately protect this species from the variety of threats it faces.
Other factors:
Invasion by Phragmites spp. has been reported in several parts of this species' range, including the
Cape Fear River marshes (NatureServe 2008). This species is also threatened by water pollution
from industry (NatureServe 2008).
References:
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed:
January 10, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1011

 Scientific Name:
Ptychobranchus jonesi
Common Name:
Southern Kidneyshell
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G1
Threatened

IUCN Status:
CR - Critically endangered

Range:
The range of the Southern Kidneyshell encompasses less than 100 square km in the Escambia and
Yellow river drainages in Alabama, and the Choctawhatchee river drainage in Alabama and Florida
(Williams and Butler 1994, Butler 1989). There are 23 known historical locations for this
species-- seven in the Escambia River drainage, two in the Yellow River drainage, and 14 in the
Choctawhatchee River drainage. The only recent detection in Alabama is from the west fork of the
Choctawhatchee River (Mirarchi et al. 2004). Blalock-Herod et al. (2005) noted very severe
decline and found live individuals at only one historical site within the Choctawhatchee River
drainage.
Habitat:
The southern kidneyshell is known from medium-sized creeks to rivers in silty sand substrates
with slow current and woody debris (Williams and Butler 1994). It has also been located in
claystone depressions (Blalock-Herod et al. 2005).
Ecology:
Little is known about the ecology of this species; it is presumed to be a long-term brooder
(Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Populations:
There are only from 1-5 extant populations of Southern Kidneyshell. Of 23 historical locations,
three have unknown population status, 18 -19 are inactive, and only one to two are active,
representing a 78 - 83 percent decline in the number of sites supporting this mussel. It is unknown
if these remaining populations are capable of reproduction and recruitment (USFWS 2003). This
mussel has been located at only 2 of 14 historical sites in the Choctawhatchee River drainage, one
on the Pea River in Coffee County, Alabama, and one on the West Fork Choctawhatchee River in
Barbour County, Alabama (Williams et al. 2000; Blalock-Herod et al. 2005). Johnson (1967) lists
historical sites in the Pea River drainage in Alabama and the Choctawhatchee River drainage in
Alabama (both Choctawhatchee River system). Population abundance is low with an average of 6
individuals detected per site (Blalock-Herod et al., 2005). Population status is undetermined at
one site in the Escambia and one site in the Yellow River basins. The remaining sites in these two
drainages are inactive and the southern kidneyshell may be extirpated from these basins. The Pea
River population may have recently become extirpated. This population was assessed in the early
1990s, but when the locality was revisited in 1998, southern kidneyshells were not located
(Blalock-Herod et al., 2005). Blalock-Herod et al. (2005) noted very severe decline and found
live individuals at only one historical site within the Choctawhatchee River drainage as well as
sites where the species was found in 1993 (finding none) and found no new sites. Pilarczyk et al.
(2006) reports this species at only one of 24 surveyed sites.
NatureServe (2008) estimates total population size at 50 - 1000 individuals, but this may be an
overestimate. At the best known site in 1988, ten individuals were detected, but only three were
detected there in the later 1990's (Butler, pers. comm., 1998, cited in NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1012

 Blalock-Herod et al. (2005) noted very severe decline and found live individuals at only one
historical site within the Choctawhatchee River drainage, and did not detect this species at sites
where the species was extant in 1993.
Population Trends:
The Southern Kidneyshell is severely declining in the short term (decline of greater than 70
percent) and has experienced a very large long-term decline of greater than 90 percent
(NatureServe 2008). This species has experienced severe range reduction and now occurs in low
abundance within its limited range. There are only 1-2 sites with active populations of this species.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Southern Kidneyshell as critically imperiled in Alabama (S1), and
state historical in FLorida (SH). It is ranked as critically endangered by the IUCN. This mussel is
in dire need of federal protection. NatureServe (2008) states: "This species is rapidly declining,
has an extremely limited distribution (one or two sites), restricted habitat, low number of extant
occurrences, overall deteriorating habitat and water quality, and reduction (perhaps to zero or one)
of number of viable populations." Its rank is being changed from threatened (Williams et al.
1993) to endangered (2010 draft, in review) by the American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
Because there are only two remaining locations for this species, habitat loss and degradation is a
dire threat to its survival. NatureServe (2008) states that the greatest threat to the Southern
Kidneyshell is habitat loss and degradation, reporting the following threats: “siltation from poorly
conducted agricultural and silvicultural activities; chicken farm litter nutrients (southern
Alabama); localized gravel/sand mining, gas and oil exploration (Escambia River, Alabama);
localized industrial (pulp mill on the Escambia River near the Alabama/Florida border) and
municipal pollution; and general watershed development (e.g., transportation projects, dams).
Logging and chicken farms are expanding industries in south Alabama. A proposed Army Corps of
Engineers dam, being pushed by local politicians, threatens many miles of riverine habitat,
particularly in Alabama. The stream and river habitats are vulnerable to habitat modification,
sedimentation, and water quality degradation from a number of activities. Highway and reservoir
construction, improper logging practices, agricultural runoff, housing developments, pipeline
crossings, and livestock grazing often result in physical disturbance of stream substrates or the
riparian zone, and/or changes in water quality, temperature, or flow. Sedimentation can cause
direct mortality of mussels by deposition and suffocation (Ellis, 1936; Brim Box and Mossa,
1999) and can eliminate or reduce the recruitment of juvenile mussels (Negus, 1966; Brim Box
and Mossa, 1999). Suspended sediment can also interfere with feeding activity of mussels
(Dennis, 1984). Many of the confirmed extant populations of this species are in the vicinity of
highway and unpaved road crossings due to ease of access for surveyors. Highway and bridge
construction and widening could affect populations of these species unless appropriate
precautions are implemented during construction to reduce erosion and sedimentation, and
maintain water quality standards. The construction of reservoirs and the associated habitat
changes (e.g., changes of sediments, flow, water temperature, dissolved oxygen) can directly
impact mussel populations (Neves et al., 1997). Nutrients, usually phosphorus and nitrogen, may
emanate from agricultural fields, residential lawns, livestock feedlots, poultry houses, and leaking
septic tanks in levels that result in eutrophication and reduced oxygen levels in small streams.”

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1013

 Overutilization:
NatureServe (2008) reports that overharvest by shell collectors and biologists is a potential threat
to this species. This species is not commercially valuable, but due to very low population size, any
collection poses a dire threat to its survival.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the Southern Kidneyshell, and no
occurrences are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). It is a federal Candidate
species and is dire need of ESA listing to protect the two remaining occurences. It is a Species of
Greastest Conservation Need in Alabama but this designation does not confer regulatory
protection.
Other factors:
Several other factors threaten the Southern Kidneyshell. Any factor which degrades water quality
threatens this species. In addition, it is vulnerable to catastrophic events because remaining
populations are generally small and geographically isolated. The loss and decline of host fishes
threatens this mussel. Small population size is a threat because this mussel may be below the
effective population size to maintain long-term viability. Invasive species such as Asiatic clam,
zebra mussel, and black carp are also a potential threat (USFWS 2003).
References:
Athearn, H.D. 1964. Three new unionids from Alabama and Florida and a note on Lampsilis
jonesi. The Nautilus, 77(4): 134-139.
Blalock-Herod, H.N., J.J. Herod, J.D. Williams, B.N. Wilson, and S.W. McGregor. 2005. A
historical and current perspective of the freshwater mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from the
Choctawhatchee River drainage in Alabama and Florida. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of
Natural History, 24: 1-26.
Brim Box, J. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and
problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 18(1): 99-117.
Brim-Box, Jayne. National Biological Service, 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653.
(352) 378-8181. Fax: (352) 378-4956.
Butler, R.S. 1989. Distributional records for freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Florida
and south Alabama, with zoogeographic and taxonomic notes. Walkerana, 3(10): 239-261.
Butler, Robert S. (Bob) (Mr.). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office, 160
Zillicoa St., Asheville, NC 28801 (former address? = 330 Ridgefield Court, Asheville, NC
28806).
Clench, W.J. and R.D. Turner. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from
the Escambia to the Suwanee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences,
1(3): 97-239.
Dennis, S.D. 1984. Distributional analysis of the freshwater mussel fauna of the Tennessee River

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1014

 system, with special reference to possible limiting effects of siltation. Ph.D. Thesis. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 247 pp.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology, 17: 29-42.
Fuller, S.L.H. 1974. Chapter 8: Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Pages 215-273 in:
C.W. Hart, Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller (eds.) Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic
Press: New York. 389 pp.
Fuller, S.L.H., and D.J. Bereza. 1974. Recent additions to the naiad fauna of the eastern gulf
drainage (Bivalvia: Unionidae: Unionidae) (Abstract). The Association of Southeastern
Biologists Bulletin, 20(2): 73.
Heard, W.H. 1979. Identification manual of the fresh water clams of Florida. State of Florida,
Department of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series, 4(2): 1-82.
Johnson, R.I. 1967. Additions to the Unionid fauna of the Gulf Drainage of Alabama, Georgia
and Florida (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Breviora, 270: 1-21.
Lefevre, G. and W.T. Curtis. 1912. Studies on the reproduction and artificial propogation of
fresh-water mussels. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries, 30: 102-201.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Negus, C.L. 1966. A quantitative study of growth and production of unionid mussels in the River
Thames at Reading. Journal of Animal Ecology, 35: 513-532.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of aquatic
mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. Pages 43-85 in
G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Pilarczyk, M.M., P.M. Stewart, D.N. Shelton, H.N. Blalock-Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2006.
Current and Recent historical freshwater mussel assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains.
Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2): 205-226.
Roe, K. 2001. Phylogenetic study of Ptychobranchus. Kansas Pearly Mussel Newsline, 6(1): 6.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Candidate and listing priority assignment form:
Fusconaia rotulata, Ptychobranchus jonesi, Fusconaia escambia, Lampsilis australis, Pleurobema
strodeanum, Villosa choctawensis, Quincuncina burkei. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama
City Field Office, Panama. 20 pp.
Watters, G.T. 1992. Unionids, fishes, and the species-area curve. Journal of Biogeography, 19:
481-490.
Williams, J.D. and R.S. Butler. 1994. Class Bivalvia, Order Unionoida, freshwater bivalves.
Pages 53-128, 740-742 in M. Deyrup and R. Frantz (eds.) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
Volume 4. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1015

 Williams, J.D., H.N. Blalock, A. Benson, and D.N. Shelton. 2000. Distribution of the freshwater
mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae and Unionidae) in the Escambia and Yellow river
drainages in southern Alabama and western Florida. Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 61 pp.
Williams, James D., Ph.D. Biological Research Division, U.S. Geological Survey. 7920 NW
71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32606. (352) 378-8181. FAX (352) 378-4956.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1016

 Scientific Name:
Pyganodon gibbosa
Common Name:
Inflated Floater
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The range of the Inlated Floater covers 250-1000 square km (about 100-400 square miles) in
Georgia. This mussel has been detected in the Little Ocmulgee River, Ohoopee River, Ocmulgee
River and the Altamaha River (G. Keferl, pers. obs., 1998 in NatureServe 2008). Clench and
Turner (1956) report this mussel from the Apalachicola River system, but Brim Box and Williams
(2000) did not detect this species in the Apalachicola River system. Clench and Turner (1956)
reported this species from the Ochlockonee River, Flint River, Uchee Creek, Chipola River and
the Choctawhatchee River in Georgia, Florida and Alabama, but these records have not been
substantiated and this mussel might be endemic to the Altamaha River system (NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
The Inflated Floater inhabits soft substrates including mud, silts, and fine sands in rivers
(NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are from 21 - 80 populations of Inflated Floater distributed
through four rivers in Georgia: the Little Ocmulgee River, Ohoopee River, Ocmulgee River and
the Altamaha River. NatureServe (2008) states: "In a survey of 131 stations (93 Altamaha River,
19 Ocmulgee River, 5 Oconee River, 4 Ohoopee River, 10 Little Ocmulgee River), 117
specimens were found at 29 stations (anonymous, 1995). It was found at 46 (16.8%) of the 273
sites examined from 1993-1997 (G. Keferl, pers. obs., 1998). It made up 1.2 percent of the
15,187 living mussels observed and 1.2 percent of the 3,155 shells collected."
Population Trends:
Based on a sample of a subset of known occurences, the Inflated Floater is experiencing rapid
short-term decline (decline of 30-50 percent). Wisniewsky et al. (2005) state that this mussel has
undergone significant recent decline. Pre-2000 site occupancy in the lower Ocmulgee and
Altamaha basin in Georgia is estimated at 17 percent, and post-2000 site occupancy is estimated
at 6 percent, indicating a significant recent decline (Wisniewsky et al. 2005).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Inflated Floater as Vulnerable in Georgia. It is classified as Near
Threatened by the IUCN. It is endemic to one river system, with recent surveys indicating decline
(from 17 to 6 of 21 sites) since 2000. It is ranked as special concern/vulnerable by the American
Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Any major changes to the Altamaha River system could negatively alter this mussel's distribution
(NatureServe 2008). The Inflated Floater occurs in small population segments in backwater
habitats and is threatened by activities which change sediment conditions such as building or
dredging (NatureServe 2008). Land adjacent to the Altamaha is being cleared for agriculture, and

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1017

 mussels there are threatened by excessive sedimentation as a result of poor land practices,
pollution, eutrophication, extremely low water levels, destabilized banks, and bank and stream bed
destabilization (NatureServe 2008, Alasmidonta arcula species account). Keferl (1993) lists
dams, sand and gravel mining, channelization, poor agricultural practices, poor timbering practices,
siltation, increased run-off volume, municipal sewage, industrial wastes, and pesticides Wisniewski,
J.M., G. Krakow, and B. Albanese. 2005. Current status of endemic mussels in the
as threats to mussels in Georgia and the Carolinas, including the Altamaha River, stating, “It is lower
Ocmulgee and Altamaha Rivers. In K.J. Hatcher (ed.) Proceedings of the Georgia Water
possible that at least four of the seven endemics in the Altamaha River may be in trouble." The
Resources Conference, 25-27 April 2005, Athens, Georgia. 2 pp.
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources (2009) cites unmanaged recreation as a threat to rare
mussels in the Altamaha drainage, stating: "unmanaged recreational use represents a serious
problem. For example, ATV use in and adjacent to the Ohoopee River may represent a threat to
populations of rare mussels such as the Altamaha spinymussel. The potential impacts from this
type of recreational use include destabilization of streambanks, excessive sedimentation,
pollution from fuel spills, and direct mortality from vehicular impacts."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect this species.
Other factors:
This mussel is threatened by loss of host fish populations, which are threatened by habitat
degradation and predation from non-native flathead catfish in the Altamaha basin (Nature
Conservancy and SARP 2005).
References:
Anonymous. 1995. Status survey on three endemic fresh-water mussels found in the Altamaha
River system. Triannual Unionid Report, 7: 6-7.
Brim Box, J. and J.D. Williams. 2000. Unionid mollusks of the Apalachicola Basin in Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia. Alabama Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 21: 1-143.
Clench, W.J. and R.D. Turner. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from
the Escambia to the Suwanee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences,
1(3): 97-239.
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources. 2009. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy:
Southeastern Plains. Accessed Jan. 26, 2010 at:
http://www1.gadnr.org/cwcs/PDF/12_SoutheasternPlains.pdf, p. 124
Keferl, E. P. Department of Biology, Brunswick Junior College, Brunswick, Georgia. Personal
communication. Cited in NatureServe 2008.
Keferl, E.P. 1993. The status of freshwater mussels in some Georgia, South Carolina, and North
Carolina waters. Proceedings of the 1993 Georgia Water Resources Conference. April 20-21,
1993, Athens, Georgia. Available at:
http://www.cms.ce.gatech.edu/gwri/uploads/proceedings/1993/KeferiE-93.pdf Last accessed
Jan. 21, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1018

 Scientific Name:
Quadrula asperata archeri
Common Name:
Tallapoosa Orb

Range:
This mussel is restricted to the Tallapoosa River above the Fall Line. This distinctive form of
Quadrula asperata was described as Quadrula archeri by Frierson (1905). It remains unclear
whether this mussel is a full species or is a subspecies of Q. asperata, but the rarity of this mussel
has precluded genetic analysis (Williams et al. 2008). Williams et al. (2008) state, "At a minimum
it warrants subspecific status, as it is morphologically distinct, occurs in a geographically defined
area and was isolated by the falls at Tallassee, Elmore County, Alabama, prior to the
impoundment of the Tallapoosa River" (p. 648). The Center is hereby petitioning for this mussel
as either a species or a subspecies.
Populations:
Freeman et al. (undated) state: "Quadrula archeri is endemic to the Tallapoosa River system and is
only known from mainstem collections in the Piedmont portion of the system, including one
locale near the Fall Line, two locales between Harris Dam and Lake Martin, and four Alabama
locales upstream from Harris reservoir (Irwin et al. 1998, J. D. Williams, personal
communication). The records upstream from Harris were collected in 1997 and include recent
dead shell material (Irwin et al. 1998)."
Population Trends:
In a recent survey of mussels in the Tallapoosa River drainage, no live individuals or shells of Q.
asperata archeri were encountered (Johnson and DeVries 2002). Freeman et al. (undated) report
that the most recent records (Irwin et al. 1998) are from shell material collected in the mainstem
upstream from Harris reservoir, and current records of live specimens are lacking.
Status:
The Tallapoosa orb is possibly extirpated and in dire need of ESA protection.
Habitat destruction:
This mussel is threatened by impoundments. Williams et al. (2008) state, "Evaluation of Quadrula
asperata archeri is especially critical because additional impoundments in the upper Tallapoosa
River drainage could drive it to extinction" (p. 648). Freeman et al. (undated) report that this
mussel has experienced substantial habitat destruction and modification within its limited range,
stating, “Construction of mainstem impoundments (Thurlow, Yates, Martin, Harris reservoirs)
destroyed habitat likely occupied by, at least, Cyprinella gibbsi, Fundulus bifax, Cottus sp.,
Percina sp., Etheostoma chuckwachatte, Etheostoma tallapoosae, Quadrula archeri and Elimia
flava; all of these species are known from mainstem habitats in the vicinity of the impoundments. .
. The range of Quadrula archeri, occurring upstream and downstream of the major reservoirs,
strongly suggests that the species natively occurred in the now-impounded reaches. Quadrula
archeri (and most likely Lampsilis altilis) has also experienced extensive habitat modification in
the unimpounded mainstem between Harris dam and Martin reservoir. Flows and thermal regimes
in this reach of river are strongly affected by operation of Harris dam, which results in rapidly
fluctuating flow and water temperature corresponding to hydropower generation at the dam (Irwin
and Freeman 2002). Cold-water releases from dams depress mussel growth and reproduction

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1019

 (Layzer et al. 1993, Neves et al. 1997).”
This mussel is also threatened by urbanization and increasing demand for freshwater for human
usage (Freeman et al. undated).
References:
Freeman, M.C., J.T. Peterson, E.R. Irwin, and B.J. Freeman. Undated. Distribution and Status of
At-Risk Aquatic Taxa in the Upper Tallapoosa River System, Georgia and Alabama, Final Report
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Frierson, L.S. 1905. New Unionidae from Alabama. The Nautilus 19(2):13-14.
Johnson, J.A. and D.R. DeVries. 2002. The freshwater mussel and snail species of the Tallapoosa
River drainage, Alabama, U.S.A. Walkerana (for 1997-1998) 9(22):121-138.
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the
Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
908 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1020

 Scientific Name:
Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica
Common Name:
Rabbitsfoot
G Rank:
AFS Status:
T3
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica is a freshwater mussel found in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and
Tennessee. Populations are present in 46 streams in the Ohio, Cumberland, Tennessee, lower
Mississippi, White, Arkansas, and Red River systems, though historical reports place this species
in 137 streams in 15 states (Butler 2005, NatureServe 2008).
It is found in 5 or 6 sites in Missouri’s Tippecanoe River, and in the Vermillion, Lower Ohio,
Spring, Black, and St. Francis Rivers, and likely extirpated from the Embarras and Wabash Rivers
(Cummings and Berlocher 1990, Cummings and Mayer 1997, Oesch 1995). In Kansas it is rare
in the Neosho and Spring Rivers, and extirpated from the Cottonwood River and Shoal Creek
(Couch 1997). The rabbitsfoot is widespread but rare in Arkansas, with the most significant
populations present in the lower Spring and Black Rivers, and others in the Ouachita and White
River systems (Harris and Gordon 1990, Harris and Gordon 1987). It is patchily distributed in
Kentucky’s lower Ohio, Tennessee, lower Cumberland, and upper Green Rivers, though it has
been extirpated from the remainder of the state (Cicerello et al. 1991, Cicerello and Schuster
2003). In Alabama, this species is present in the Paint Rock River system, and a small portion of
Bear Creek (Mirarchi et al. 2004, Williams et al. 2008). In Tennessee, it is found in the Elk,
Duck, the east fork Stones, and Tennessee Rivers, and likely extirpated from the Buffalo, French
Broad, and Caney Fork Rivers (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). Populations are present in parts of
Virginia’s Clinch, Powell, and Holston Rivers (Parmalee and Bogan 1998), and in Louisiana’s
Bayou Bartholomeau and Ouachita Rivers, though it is likely extirpated from the upper
Mississippi (Vidrine 1993). In Mississippi, it is known from the Yazoo, Tennessee, Lake
Maurepas, and Tombigbee drainages (Jones et al. 2005). Though it was once widely distributed in
Illinois’s Vermilion, Wabash, and Ohio Rivers, it is now only sporadically noted in the North Fork
Vermilion and Ohio Rivers (Cummings and Mayer 1997). It is largely extirpated from Indiana,
where it was once widely present; small populations remain in the Tippecanoe and Eel Rivers (IN
NHP as cited in NatureServe 2008), and the St. Joseph River (Watters 1988, Pryor 2005).
Occurrences in Oklahoma are limited to the Upper Little, Glover, and Illinois drainages (Galbraith
et al. 2008, Branson 1982). This species is largely extirpated from Pennsylvania, with remaining
populations known only in the Shenango and French River drainages (Bursey 1987, PA NHP 2006
as cited in NatureServe 2008). Ohio’s populations are found in Fish Creek, Little Darby Creek,
and tributaries of the Scioto and Muskingum Rivers (Watters 1995).
Habitat:
The rabbitsfoot is found in large and medium-sized rivers with moderate gradients, often in shoal
or riffle habitat (Gordon and Layzer 1989). In smaller streams in is most often found on sand or
gravel bars or cobble close to areas of rapid current (Cummings and Mayer 1992).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1021

 Ecology:
Adults are filter feeders, consuming primarily organic detritus from the water column.
Populations:
It is estimated that there are 21-80 extant occurrences of this mussel, and total population is
thought to number at least 10,000 individuals (NatureServe 2008). Populations are extant in 46
streams in 13 states. Many populations are small and isolated.
Population Trends:
The rabbitsfoot has experienced a long-term decline of up to 90 percent, and continues to decline
very rapidly in the short-term by up to 70 percent (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) lists the rabbitsfoot as critically imperiled in Alabama, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, imperiled in Kentucky, and
vulnerable in Tennessee. Its conservation status is not ranked in Illinois or Arkansas. Butler
(2005) reports that the rabbitsfoot is present at less than one-third of historically occupied sites,
and that total range and population losses likely exceed 90 percent. Where this species is still
present, populations are restricted and highly isolated. Its persistence in Alabama, Kansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri is highly endangered, and recent population reports from
Nebraska, Michigan, Iowa, and New York are dubious (Butler 2005). It is ranked as threatened by
the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss to impoundments, channelization, chemical contaminants, mining, and sedimentation
is widely cited as the primary cause of decline for this species (Butler 2005, Neves 1991, 1993,
Williams et al. 1993, Neves et al. 1997, Watters 2000). Impoundments are the primary factor in
the historical decline of the rabbitsfoot; dams disrupt natural hydrological processes by
modifying flood pulses, altering water flow, sediment levels, nutrients, decreasing habitat
heterogeneity, and isolating mussel populations from their glochidial host species (Neves 1993).
Impoundments also compromise riffle and shoal habitats that the rabbitsfoot relies on. The
majority of large river habitat within the rabbitsfoot’s range has been impounded, including the
main stems of the Ohio, Cumberland, Tennessee, and White Rivers and their larger tributaries,
leaving only short, isolated reaches that represent marginally suitable habitat (NatureServe 2008).
Coal, gravel, and mineral mining threaten the rabbitsfoot in large portions of its range, through
disrupted flow patterns, increased sedimentation and contamination, decline in macroinvertebrate
prey base, and other changes. Agricultural activities contribute heavily to sedimentation and
siltation, particularly in the Midwest and Southeast. Finally, residential and industrial
development contribute to the degradation of aquatic habitat, both by outright destruction,
increased regional water withdrawal, and pollutants, primarily in the form of stormwater runoff
(NatureServe 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Several populations occur within bioreserves owned by the Nature Conservancy, or within
watersheds designated as protected by state legislation, but NatureServe (2008) still reports that
few occurrences are adequately protected or managed. The rabbitsfoot is state listed as endangered
in Ohio, Illinois, Mississippi, Indiana, and threatened in Kentucky, but these designations afford
no substantial regulatory protection for the mussel or its habitat.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1022

 Other factors:
The rabbitsfoot is threatened by contaminants from both point and non-point sources which
degrade water quality, increase sedimentation, and adversely affect or even completely destroy
mussel populations. The effects of contaminants on juvenile mussels are especially acute. Runoff
from coal mines is rich in heavy metals and has detrimentally affected many drainages that host
rabbitsfoot populations, including but not limited to the upper Ohio River system in Kentucky,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, the lower Ohio River system in Illinois, the rough River drainage
in Kentucky, and the upper Cumberland River system in Kentucky and Tennessee (NatureServe
2008). The health of freshwater mussel populations reliant on glochidial hosts for larval
development is clearly linked to the health of host fish populations, and the rabbitsfoot is thus
threatened by any factor which threatens its host fishes.
The rabbitsfoot may also be threatened by invasive mussels. Zebra mussels are established in many
rabbitsfoot streams, including the Ohio, Allegheny, Green, Tennessee, and White Rivers, and
French and Bear Creeks. The Asian clam is also present in much of the rabbitsfoot’s range, and has
been identified as a competitor with native mussel species for food, nutrients, and space (Neves
and Widlack 1987, Leff et al. 1990, Ricciardi et al. 1998).
References:
Vidrine, M.F. 1993. The Historical Distributions of Freshwater Mussels in Louisiana. Gail Q.
Vidrine Collectibles: Eunice, Louisiana. xii + 225 pp. + 20 plates.
Bogan, A.E. and P.W. Parmalee. 1983. Tennessee's rare wildlife. Vol. 2: The mollusks.
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and the Tennessee Conservation Department: Nashville,
Tennessee. 123 pp.
Branson, B.A. 1982. The mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of Oklahoma - Part I - Ambleminae.
Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 67: 38-45.
Bursey, C.R. 1987. The unionid (Mollusca: Bivalvia) fauna of the Shenango River in Mercer
County, Pennsylvania. Proceeding of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science, 61: 41-43.
Butler, R.S. 2005. Status assessment report for the rabbitsfoot, Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica, a
freshwater mussel occurring in the Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins. Unpublished report
prepared by the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team Mollusk Subgroup, Asheville, North
Carolina, July 2005. 204 pp.
Cicerello, R.R. and G.A. Schuster. 2003. A guide to the freshwater mussels of Kentucky.
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series, 7: 1-62.
Cicerello, R.R., M.L. Warren, Jr., and G.A. Schuster. 1991. A distributional checklist of the
freshwater unionids (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of Kentucky. American Malacological Bulletin, 8(2):
113-129
Couch, K.J. 1997. An Illustrated Guide to the Unionid Mussels of Kansas. Karen J. Couch.
[Printed in Olathe, Kansas]. 124 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1023

 Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1992. Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest.
Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5, Illinois. 194 pp.
Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater
mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pages 129-145 in: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer,
and T.J. Naimo (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the
future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.
Cummings, K.S. and J.M. Berlocher. 1990. The naiades or freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) of the Tippecanoe River, Indiana. Malacological Review, 23: 83-98.
Galbraith, H.S., D.E. Spooner, and C.C. Vaughn. 2008. Status of rare and endangered freshwater
mussels in southeastern Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist, 53(1): 45-50.
Gordon, M.E. and J.B. Layzer. 1989. Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of the Cumberland River
review of life histories and ecological relationships. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
Report, 89(15): 1-99.
Harris, J. L., and M. E. Gordon. 1990. Arkansas Mussels. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission,
Little Rock, Arkansas.
Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1987. Distribution and status of rare and endangered mussels
(Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of
Science, 41: 49-56.
Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia:
Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(1): 77-92.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
October 20, 2009).
Neves, R.J. 1991. Mollusks. Pages 251-320 in K. Terwilliger (ed.). Virginia's Endangered
Species. Proceedings of a Symposium, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. McDonald and
Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.
Oesch, R.D. 1995. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Second edition.
Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri. viii + 271 pp.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
Pryor, W.W. 2005. Distribution of the native freshwater mussels in the rivers of Allen County,
Indiana. Report to the St. Joseph River Watershed Initiative, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1024

 Watters, G.T. 1995. A field guide to the freshwater mussels of Ohio. revised 3rd edition. Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus, Ohio. 122 pp
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama & the Mobile
Basin in Georgia, Mississippi & Tennessee. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
908 pp.
Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993.
Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries, 18(9): 622.
Yeager, B.L. and R.J. Neves. 1986. Reproductive cycle and fish hosts of the rabbits foot mussel
Quadrula cylindrica strigillata (Mollusca:Unionidae) in the upper Tennessee River drainage.
American Midland Naturalist, 116: 331-340.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1025

 Scientific Name:
Fusconaia burkei
Common Name:
Tapered Pigtoe
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened
Range:
Also known as Quincuncina burkei, the range of the Tapered Pigtoe covers 250-1000 square km in
Alabama and Florida. It is endemic to the Choctawhatchee River drainage (Clench and Turner
1956, Williams and Butler 1994, Blalock-Herod et al. 2005, USFWS 2003). NatureServe (2008)
provides the following details on this species' distribution: "The historical distribution of the
tapered pigtoe has recently been expanded, and a relic shell was found recently in Big Creek, Pike
County, Alabama (Blalock-Herod et al., 2005). The tapered pigtoe is known from Horseshoe Lake
(an oxbow lake with flowing connection to main channel of the Choctawhatchee River),
Washington County; Limestone Creek, Walton County; East Pitman Creek, Holmes County;
Choctawhatchee River, Washington, Walton, and Holmes Counties; Holmes Creek, Washington
and Holmes Counties; and Tenmile Creek, Holmes County; all in Florida. In Alabama, the
historical distribution of the tapered pigtoe included: Flat and Hurricane creeks, Geneva County;
Pea River, Barbour, Coffee and Dale Counties; Choctawhatchee River, Dale County; Little
Choctawhatchee River, Dale and Houston Counties; East Fork Choctawhatchee River, Dale
County; Bear and Panther Creeks; Houston County; and West Fork Choctawhatchee River,
Barbour County (Blalock-Herod et al.,2005). Blalock-Herod et al. (2005) list this species
historically from 40 localities in the Choctawhatchee River drainage in Alabama and Florida
(extant in 7) and 26 new locations in the drainage in isolated spots in the headwaters, the Flat
Creek watershed, and the main channel and some tributaries in Florida."
Habitat:
The tapered pigtoe is found in medium-sized creeks to large rivers in slow to moderate current
and stable sand or sand and gravel substrata, and occasionally in silty sand (Williams and Butler
1994).
Ecology:
Little is known about the ecology of this species, but it is thought to be a short-term brooder.
Gravid females have been detected in May with all four gills used as marsupia and subcylindrical
conglutinates (Ortmann and Walker 1922 in Mirarchi et al. 2004). Fish hosts are unknown
(Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are from 21-80 populations of Tapered Pigtoe, providing
the following details: "The following locations known from historical museum records continue
to support tapered pigtoe populations: Limestone Creek, Walton County; East Pittman Creek,
Holmes County; Choctawhatchee River, Washington, Walton, and Holmes Counties; and Holmes
Creek, Washington and Holmes Counties; all in Florida; and Flat Creek, Geneva County; Alabama
(fide Blalock-Herod et al., 2005). During recent status surveys, the tapered pigtoe was found live
and as shell material at 33 of 54 historical sites with an average of 7 individuals per site.
Populations were inactive at 15 historical sites and status is undetermined at 6 sites. Four
populations were represented by 10 - 20 individuals (fide Blalock-Herod et al., 2005).
Recruitment status of the tapered pigtoe is unknown, and may be occurring at low levels within the
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1026

 existing populations (USFWS, 2003; Williams and Butler, 1994; Blalock et al., 1998). In
Alabama, it is extant in 9 locations scattered in tributaries of Choctawhatchee drainage, including
headwaters of Pea River (Mirarchi et al., 2004). Blalock-Herod et al. (2005) list this species
historically from 40 localities in the Choctawhatchee River drainage in Alabama and Florida
(extant in 7) and 26 new locations in the drainage in isolated spots in the headwaters, the Flat
Creek watershed, and the main channel and some tributaries in Florida. Pilarczyk et al. (2006)
recorded recent collections (in 2004) of this species following surveys of 24 sites at four sites in
Alabama including West Fork Choctawhatchee River, Eighmile Creek (in Florida), Pea Creek,
and Big Creek compared to Flat Creek, Eightmile Creek (just over the border in Florida), Pea
River, Pea Creek, Big Creek, West Fork Choctawhatchee River, and Judy Creek in surveys of the same
sites in the 1990s. White et al. (2008) utilized specimens from Eightmile Creek in Walton
Co., Florida for host suitability studies."
NatureServe (2008) states: "In 1987 at the the best known site, 37 specimens were found
in one hour's time. However, its numbers are generally smaller, at least in Florida's recent
records. During recent status surveys, the tapered pigtoe was found live and as shell material at 33
of 54 historical sites with an average of 7 individuals per site. Populations were inactive at 15
historical sites and status is undetermined at 6 sites. Four populations were represented by 10 - 20
individuals (fide Blalock-Herod et al., 2005). Pilarczyk et al. (2006) recorded recent collections (in
2004) of this species following surveys of 24 sites in Alabama at six sites historical and including West
Fork Choctawhatchee River (5 live), Eighmile Creek in Florida (29 live), Pea Creek (5 live), and Big
Creek (1 live)."
Population Trends:
The Tapered Pigtoe is declining in the short term (decline of 10-30 percent) and moderately
declining in the long term (decline of 25 - 50 percent). This mussel has been extirpated from
approximately 28 percent of its historic range. Populations appear to be extirpated from
Hurricane Creek, Geneva County; Bear and Panther Creeks, Houston County; Little
Choctawhatchee River, Houston and Dale Counties; Pea River, Coffee and Dale counties;
Choctawhatchee River and East Fork Choctawhatchee River, Dale county, and probably Big Creek,
Pike County, all in Alabama (USFWS 2003). Recruitment levels are thought to be low
(NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Tapered Pigtoe as critically imperiled in Alabama and imperiled in
Florida. It is a Federal Candidate and merits immediate listing under the ESA. It appears to be
extirpated from multiple, historical occurrences, and is confined primarily to main channel
habitats within its narrow distribution. It is ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries
Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) provides the following information on threats to this species' habitat: "Habitat
loss or degradation is the primary threat to this species. The stream and river habitats are
vulnerable to habitat modification, sedimentation, and water quality degradation from a number of
activities. Highway and reservoir construction, improper logging practices, agricultural runoff,
housing developments, pipeline crossings, and livestock grazing often result in physical
disturbance of stream substrates or the riparian zone, and/or changes in water quality, temperature,
or flow. Sedimentation can cause direct mortality of mussels by deposition and suffocation
(Ellis, 1936; Brim Box and Mossa, 1999) and can eliminate or reduce the recruitment of juvenile
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1027

 mussels (Negus, 1966; Brim Box and Mossa, 1999). Suspended sediment can also interfere with
feeding activity of mussels (Dennis, 1984). Many of the confirmed extant populations of this
species are in the vicinity of highway and unpaved road crossings due to ease of access for
surveyors. Highway and bridge construction and widening could affect populations of these
species unless appropriate precautions are implemented during construction to reduce erosion
and sedimentation, and maintain water quality standards. The construction of reservoirs and the
associated habitat changes (e.g., changes of sediments, flow, water temperature, dissolved
oxygen) can directly impact mussel populations (Neves et al., 1997). Nutrients, usually
phosphorus and nitrogen, may emanate from agricultural fields, residential lawns, livestock
feedlots, poultry houses, and leaking septic tanks in levels that result in eutrophication and
reduced oxygen levels in small streams."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect the Tapered Pigtoe, and it is
unknown whether any occurrences are appropriately protected or managed as there are no known
protected occurrences (NatureServe 2008). This mussel is a federal candidate. A population of
this mussel may exist in Blue Springs State Park in Alabama. This mussel is a Species of Greatest
Conservation Need in Alabama, but this designation does not confer regulatory protection. It has
no state status in Florida. NatureServe (2008) provides the following management
recommendations for the Tapered Pigtoe: "Protect populations through acquisitions and easements
by working with government agencies and conservation organizations; establish buffers and
streamside management zones for all agricultural, silvicultural, mining, and developmental
activities; maintain high water and benthic habitat quality. Control/eradicate CORBICULA
populations. Conservation activities have been limited to working with private landowners in south
Alabama and west Florida to encourage the use of Best Management Practices to reduce the
effects of agriculture and silviculture (see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003)."
Other factors:
Any factor which degrades water quality threatens the Tapered Pigtoe. This species is also
threatened by any factor which threatens the survival of host fishes. NatureServe (2008) states that
deteriorating water quality throughout the Choctawhatchee drainage is a probable impact. Because
remaining populations of Tapered Pigtoe are small and isolated, it is vulnerable to stochastic
genetic and environmental events. This mussel is genetically vulnerable because some populations
may be below effective population size to maintain long-term viability. The Tapered Pigtoe is also
potentially threatened by invasive species such as Asiatic clam, zebra mussel, and black carp
(USFWS 2003, NatureServe 2008).
References:
Blalock, H.N., J.J. Herod, and J.D. Williams. 1998. Freshwater mussels (Unionacea: Bivalvia) of
the Pea River Watershed of Alabama and Florida. Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Jacksonville, Florida. 61 pp.
Blalock-Herod, H.N., J.J. Herod, J.D. Williams, B.N. Wilson, and S.W. McGregor. 2005. A
current perspective of the freshwater mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from the
Choctawhatchee River drainage in Alabama and Florida. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of
Natural History, 24: 1-26.
Brim Box, J. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1028

 problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 18(1): 99-117.
Clench, W.J. and R.D. Turner. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from
the Escambia to the Suwanee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences,
1(3): 97-239.
Dennis, S.D. 1984. Distributional analysis of the freshwater mussel fauna of the Tennessee River
system, with special reference to possible limiting effects of siltation. Ph.D. Thesis. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 247 pp.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology, 17: 29-42.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Negus, C.L. 1966. A quantitative study of growth and production of unionid mussels in the River
Thames at Reading. Journal of Animal Ecology, 35: 513-532.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of aquatic
mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. Pages 43-85 in
G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Pilarczyk, M.M., P.M. Stewart, D.N. Shelton, H.N. Blalock-Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2006.
Current and Recent historical freshwater mussel assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains.
Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2): 205-226.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Candidate and listing priority assignment form:
Fusconaia rotulata, Ptychobranchus jonesi, Fusconaia escambia, Lampsilis australis, Pleurobema
strodeanum, Villosa choctawensis, Quincuncina burkei. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama
City Field Office, Panama. 20 pp.
White, M.P., H.N. Blalock-Herod, and P.M. Stewart. 2008. Life history and fish host
identification for Fusconaia burkei and Pleurobema strodeanum (Bivalvia: Unionidae). American
Malacological Bulletin, 24(1/2): 121-125.
Williams, J.D. and R.S. Butler. 1994. Class Bivalvia, Order Unionoida, freshwater bivalves.
Pages 53-128, 740-742 in M. Deyrup and R. Frantz (eds.) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
Volume 4. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1029

 Scientific Name:
Rana okaloosae
Common Name:
Florida Bog Frog
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Florida Bog Frog has a very narrow range in Florida, occuring at roughly 24 sites along
tributaries of the East Bay, Shoal and Yellow rivers in Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton counties
(NatureServe 2008). AmphibiaWeb (2009) reports that this species occurs only along small
streams draining to Titi Creek, the East Bay River, or the lower Yellow River, all of which
ultimately drain to Escambia Bay. The Titi Creek populations in Walton County, Florida, appear to
be isolated by approximately 30 km from populations in the lower Yellow River basin.
Habitat:
The Bog Frog's habitat consists of early successional shrub bog communities. The species is
found in or near shallow, nonstagnant, acidic (pH 4.1-5.5) seeps and along shallow, boggy
overflows of larger seepage streams that drain extensive sandy uplands. This frog is associated
with beds of sphagnum moss, black titi, and Atlantic white cedar. In mature forest areas, this
species occurs in disturbed locations (Moler 1992). This frog breeds and permanently resides in
the same habitats (NatureServe 2008, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Ecology:
Rana okaloosae is syntopic with Rana clamitans, Acris gryluus, and sometimes Hyla andersonii.
Breeding occurs from April–August, with occasional calling heard into early September (Moler,
1985, 1992). Eggs are laid in thin masses at the water surface in quiet pools in adult habitat.
Males typically call from shallow water surrounded by sphagnum (Moler 1993). Some tadpoles
overwinter (Moler, 1985, 1992). Bog Frogs have been observed eating moths attracted by
photographers' lights at night. Predators likely include cottonmouths (Agkistrodon piscivorus) and
southern water snakes (Nerodia fasciata) (NatureServe 2008, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Populations:
The Florida Bog Frog is known from approximately two dozen sites. Population size is unknown
(NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown.
Status:
This species is imperiled in Florida (S2) (NatureServe 2008). It is ranked as Vulnerable by the
IUCN. It lacks legal protective status.
Habitat destruction:
The greatest threats to the Florida Bog Frog are stream impoundment and habitat succession
(Moler 1992). This frog is particularly vulnerable to habitat destruction and modification because
of its limited range and habitat specificity (NatureServe 2008). This species' habitat has been
degraded by improper watershed management, siltation stemming from poor road placement, and
poor forest management in surrounding uplands (Moler 1992, NatureServe 2008). This frog is
threatened by residential development of its habitat (Moler 1993).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1030

 Enge (2005) cites logging, groundwater use, siltation from dirt roads and cleared lands,
impoundment, and poor management of adjacent upland habitat as threats to amphibian species in
ravine habitats in the Florida Panhandle, including R. okaloosae.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2009) cites threats to the Bog Frog as
siltation, pollution, and excess surface runoff where roads cross slopes above streams, damming,
and altered fire regime which allows hardwood succession along streams
(http://www.fwc.state.fl.us/docs/FWCG/florida_bog_frog.pdf). The Commission cites altered fire
regime, altered hydrologic regime, groundwater withdrawal, surface water diversion, and altered
community structure as threats to the Bog Frog’s habitat
(http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Shrub_Swamp.pdf).
The Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection lists the Florida Bog Frog as occurring at Rocky
Bayou State Park where its habitat is threatened by potential loss of submerged and emergent
vegetation due to increased residential housing along the preserve boundary, and by high use of
the preserve as a water skiing area which may have an impact on the natural submerged and emergent
vegetation. There are also recurring issues with high bacteria counts in the preserve waters adjacent to
the state park (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/rocky/info.htm).
There has been widespread destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of imperiled amphibian habitats
in the Southeast (Vial and Saylor 1993, Pechmann and Wilbur 1994 in LaClaire 1997, p. 314). Dodd
(1997) states: “The integrity of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats is important to amphibian survival,
even among species that never venture beyond a single habitat type. Furthermore, the various life history
stages (eggs, larvae, young, adults) may be differentially susceptible or sensitive to environmental
perturbations . . . Although vast areas have been cleared in the Southeast for agriculture, industry, and
urban use, there is virtually no assessment of the landscape effects of land conversion on amphibian
populations. It seems evident, however, that habitat changes (see papers in Hackney et al. 1992, Boyce
and Martin 1993), and with them changes in aquatic amphibian populations, have been enormous” (p.
177-8).
Habitat loss and degradation obviously negatively affects amphibian populations. LaClaire (1997) states:
“There is a growing body of work documenting (amphibian) population declines on sites where habitats
have been degraded or destroyed (Vickers et al. 1985, Enge and Marion 1986, Ash 1988, Dodd 1991,
Raymond and Hardy 1991, Petranka et al. 1993, Phelps and Lancia 1995, Means et al. 1996). . . Clearly,
when the habitat of a given population is destroyed, that population has gone or will shortly go extinct.
Many species may be unable to recolonize areas after local extinctions, especially when unsuitable
habitat exists between the extinct population and extant populations” (p. 325-326).
Habitat fragmentation can lead to amphibian population extirpation by disrupting metapopulation
dynamics and preventing dispersal and rescue between source and sink habitat. Dodd (1997) states:
“Land use patterns resulting in fragmentation can influence amphibian population genetic structure . . . if
populations become overly fragmented, emigration and immigration may be inhibited or stopped, thus
preventing recolonization from source populations. . . Small isolated populations are particularly
susceptible to environmental perturbations and to stochastic variation in demography that can lead to
extinction even without external perturbations. Isolation by habitat fragmentation thus becomes a threat
to the regional persistence of species” (p. 178).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1031

 Aquatic amphibian populations are threatened by habitat destruction and water pollution from phosphate
mining in Florida (Wallace et al. 1992, LaClaire 2007).
Dodd (1997) states: “Mining not only destroys aquatic amphibian habitats outright, it also results in
toxic pollution, decreased pH, and siltation of streams and rivers” (p. 180).
Logging is detrimental for both aquatic and terrestrial amphibian habitat because it eliminates shade,
increases soil and water temperature, alters stream flow, increases sedimentation, reduces the input of
coarse woody debris and organic matter into streams, reduces forest floor litter (especially if litter is
piled and burned), reduces soil moisture, reduces and eliminates burrows and hiding places, and destroys
wetlands. Logging also frequently involves the use of herbicides which can be detrimental for
amphibians (see http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Logging is known to decrease
amphibian abundance and reproductive success (Dodd 1997, LaClaire 1997). LaClaire (1997) states:
“Habitat destruction and degradation resulting from timbering operations may create problems for longterm survival of imperiled amphibians (Kramer et al. 1993, Petranka et al. 1993)” (p. 327).
Road construction and repair and traffic degrade amphibian habitat. Roads can divide breeding locations
from overwintering sites and increase mortality for migrating adults and dispersing juveniles, and can
disrupt metapopulation dynamics and lead to population isolation, and light and noise from roads can
disrupt breeding and feeding behaviors (Dodd 1997). Dodd (1997) states: “Transportation corridors,
especially roads, can have serious deleterious effects on amphibian populations (Langton 1989). Road
construction can lead to habitat destruction in both terrestrial and aquatic environments, and can
negatively alter breeding habitats through increased siltation. Increased siltation can lead to increased
amphibian mortality because of its own secondary effects. For example, nearly all aquatic life was
eliminated downstream after U.S. HWY 441 was rebuilt in 1963 in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park” (p. 180).
Overutilization:
Amphibians are collected from the wild for use as food, pets, and for the biological and medicinal
supply markets (AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/exploitation.html). Dodd
(1997) states: “Collecting specimens for the pet trade or biological laboratories probably has had
some impact on local (Southeast) amphibian populations, but few data are available” (p. 183).
Disease or predation:
New diseases and increased susceptibility of amphibians to existing diseases are known to be
contributing to the decline of amphibian species (Blaustein et al. 1994, Laurance et al. 1996,
Berger et al. 1998, Daszak 2000, Kiesecker et al. 2001, reviewed in AmphibiaWeb 2009,
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/diseases.html). Stress from factors such as habitat loss and
fragmentation, chemical pollution, climate change, invasion of exotic species, increased UV-B
radiation, and natural population fluctuations may increase the susceptibility of amphibians to
disease (Carey 1993, Dodd 1997, Fellers et al. 2001, Kiesecker at al. 2001, AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Pathogens known to cause infectious disease in amphibians include bacterial, fungal, viral,
metazoan, water mold, and trematode agents (Wright and Whitaker 2001 in AmphibiaWeb 2009).
Chytridiomycosis (chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), has had severe impacts on
amphibian populations worldwide. Chytrid fungus is known to be present in the southeastern U.S.
(AmphibiaWeb 2009) and potentially threatens the Florida Bog Frog. In addition to disease, there
has been a widespread increase of amphibian deformities and malformations
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/deformities.html).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1032

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The Florida Bog Frog is considered a Species of Special Concern in Florida, but this designation
does not provide any regulatory protection for its declining habitat. Approximately 90 percent of
the total range may be within Eglin Air Force Base, but national security concerns take precedence
over wildlife management (NatureServe 2008).
Other factors:
Dodd (1997) lists rarity as a potential threat to the Florida Bog Frog. Rana okaloosae is potentially
threatened by hybridization with R. clamitans clamitans (Gorman et al. 2009). Enge (2005) cites
water pollution, recreation, and trash dumping as threats to amphibians in the Florida Panhandle.
The Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission cites water pollution and invasive species as
threats to the Bog Frog (http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Shrub_Swamp.pdf).
Enge (2005) cites feral hogs as a threat to amphibians in the Florida Panhandle.
Other factors which threaten imperiled amphibian populations in the Southeast include water
pollution from acidification, toxins, and endocrine disrupting chemicals, reduced prey availability,
climate change, UV-B radiation, invasive species, and synergistic effects from these and other
threats.
Acidification of soils and water bodies is detrimental for amphibians. Acidification of amphibian
habitat can result from acid precipitation and from acid mine drainage. Acid disrupts ion balance in
both terrestrial and aquatic lifestages of amphibians, impairs chemosensory reception, and inhibits
larval feeding (Dodd 1997). Embryos and larvae are particularly sensitive to decreased pH.
Terrestrial salamanders avoid acidified soils. Acidification also has indirect effects which can kill
embryos, larvae, and adults by interfering with egg development, disrupting trophic interactions,
and inducing chronic environmental stress. Low pH also makes amphibians more susceptible to
deleterious effects from heavy metals and increased UV-B radiation (Dodd 1997).
Environmental toxins pose a threat to amphibians in the Southeast due to lethal and sub-lethal
effects which can include mortality, decreased growth rate, behavioral and developmental
abnormalities, lowered reproductive success, weakened immunity, and hermaphroditism (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ChemCon.html). Amphibians are particularly vulnerable to toxic
substances because of the permeable nature of their skin. A wide range of chemical stressors are
known to negatively affect amphibians including heavy metals, pesticides, phenols, carbon
tetrachloride, nitrogen based fertilizers, and road salt (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009). The
presence of toxins can also make amphibians more susceptible to disease (Dodd 1997).
Amphibians are also threatened by endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment (eg. Hayes
et al. 2006). Dodd (1997) states: “Amphibians are likely to be especially sensitive to the action of
endocrine mimics because they are in close direct contact with chemicals in their environment,
and the amphibian skin and egg capsule are highly permeable. Because hormones normally
function in minute quantities and are vital to normal development, susceptibility to xenobiotics
could be devastating during the complex changes that occur during hormonally-induced amphibian
metamorphosis” (p. 182).
Toxins and other chemicals can also harm amphibians by reducing food availability. Dodd (1997)
states: “If species that are preyed upon by amphibians decline or disappear, amphibian populations
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1033

 may be expected to follow suit. The use of pesticides and the influence of toxics, pH, and habitat
alteration all may be expected to affect amphibian prey populations” (p. 184).
Climate change poses a threat for amphibians because it will alter rainfall and temperature patterns
and affect soil moisture (Dodd 1997, Field et al. 2007). Amphibians are particularly sensitive to
minute changes in moisture and temperature, and changes in climate can affect breeding behavior,
reproductive success, and immune function (see
http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/ClimateChange.html). Amphibians which breed in temporary
ponds or in water bodies that are sensitive to changes in groundwater level are particularly
susceptible to climate change effects. Drought can lead to localized extirpation, which combined
with habitat fragmentation and impaired dispersal, can contribute to extinction (Dodd 1997).
During the past few decades, levels of UV-B radiation in the atmosphere have significantly
increased. For amphibians, UV-B radiation can cause direct mortality as well as sublethal effects
including decreased hatching success, decreased growth rate, developmental abnormalities, and
immune dysfunction (Dodd 1997, AmphibiaWeb 2009: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/UVB.html).
Southeastern amphibians are also threatened by the invasion of non-native species which prey on
or compete with native amphibians. Nonnative fishes can negatively affect amphibian populations
through predation, competition, and disease introduction. Introduced nonnative amphibians such as the
marine toad (Bufo marinus) and Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) are potentially harmful for
native amphibians in the Southeast. Rossi (1981) found that anuran species richness was reduced in an
area where B. marinus was established (in Dodd 1997). Introduced mammals, such as armadillos and
wild hogs, and introduced birds like cattle egrets “may exact a substantial toll on amphibian
populations” (Dodd 1997). Invasive fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also a potential threat for
Southeastern amphibians. Dodd (1997) states: “Ground dwelling vertebrates are especially sensitive to
this ravenous predator, and fire ants have been reported to kill endangered Houston toads (Bufo
houstonensis) as they metamorphose. Fire ants are especially abundant in the moist perimeter
surrounding ponds and lakes, and they can float in mats across ponds from vegetation clump to
vegetation clump. Fire ants have few predators and have expanded their range throughout the
Southeast” (p. 183). See: http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/IntroSp.html.
Synergisms between multiple threats could contribute to the extinction of Southeast amphibians.
Multiple factors acting together have both lethal and sublethal effects
(http://amphibiaweb.org/declines/synergisms.html). For example, increased UV-B radiation
increases the susceptibility of amphibians to the effects of contaminants, pathogens and climate
change. Dodd (1997): “The amphibians of this area (the Southeast), and particularly the fully
aquatic species, face a multitude of threats to their long-term existence. These threats generally do
not act independently, but instead act in concert to have potentially serious long-term effects” (p.
185).
References:
Amphibiaweb. 2009. University of California, Berkeley. http://amphibiaweb.org/
Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1997. Imperiled amphibians: a historical persective. Pp. 165–200. In Benz, G.W.
D.E. Collins (Eds.), Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication Number 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications,
Decatur, Georgia.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1034

 Enge, K.M. 2005. Herpetofaunal drift-fence surveys of steephead ravines in the Florida
Panhandle. Southeastern Naturalist 4(4):657-678.
Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running and
M.J. Scott, 2007: North America. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change,M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 617-652.
http://www.ipccinfo.com/wg2report_north_america.php
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection. 2009.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/rocky/info.htm
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Florida Bog Frog.
http://www.fwc.state.fl.us/docs/FWCG/florida_bog_frog.pdf
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Wildlife Habitats: Legacy Shrub
Swamp. http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Shrub_Swamp.pdf
Gorman, T.A., D.C. Bishop, and C.A. Haas. 2009. Spatial Interactions between Two Species of
Frogs: Rana okaloosae and R. clamitans clamitans. Copeia 1:138-141.
LaClaire, L.V. 1997. Amphibians in Peril: Resource Management in the Southeast. p. 307-321
In: Benz, G.W. and D.E. Collins (editors). 1997. Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern
Perspective. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute Special Publication 1, Lenz Design and
Communications, Decatur, GA. 553 pp.
Moler, P. E. 1985. A new species of frog (Ranidae: Rana) from northwestern Florida. Copeia
1985:379-383.
Moler, P. E. 1992. Florida bog frog RANA OKALOOSAE Moler. Pages 30-3 in P. E. Moler
(editor). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume III. Amphibians and Reptiles. University
Press of Florida.
Moler, P.E. 1993. Rana okaloosae. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. 561:1-3.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1035

 Scientific Name:
Remenus kirchneri
Common Name:
Blueridge Springfly
G Rank:
G2
Range:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is endemic to the Blue Ridge mountains of
southwestern Virginia.
Habitat:
This springfly inhabits small spring-fed streams and seeps in the Blue Ridge mountains.
Populations:
There are less than ten occurrences of this fly. Population data are not available.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled. It is considered a Species of Concern by the
state of Virginia.
Habitat destruction:
This species is threatened by increasing development and poor land management practices
(NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Stark, B.P. 1996. Last updated 16 February 2001. North American Stonefly List. Online.
Available: http://www.mc.edu/campus/users/stark/Sfly0102.htm.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1036

 Scientific Name:
Rhexia parviflora
Common Name:
Small-flower Meadow-beauty
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Known variously as the Apalachicola meadowbeauty, white meadowbeauty, or small-flower
meadowbeauty, this species is known from the Florida panhandle, southeastern Alabama, and
southern Georgia (Chafin 2000, Weakley 2007, Kartesz 1999). Natural heritage records exist for
Covington, Escambia, and Geneva Counties, Alabama, and for Bay, Calhoun, Franklin, Gulf,
Liberty, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and Walton Counties, Florida, though not all have been recently
confirmed (NatureServe 2008). This species is likely extirpated in Georgia.
Habitat:
This flower occurs along the margins of ponds and shallow, wet depressions, hillside seeps, and
evergreen shrub ponds (Chafin 2000). It is associated with pine-palmetto flatwoods and savannahs
(Schotz 2008), and seems to prefer sandy peat soils (Kral 1983).
Ecology:
The meadow-beauty is perennial, and flowers June - August (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Schotz (2008) reports 43 occurrences, 39 in Florida and four in Alabama. Several of these are of
poor viability.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that R. parviflora has experienced substantial declines in recent
decades and continues to decline rapidly because of habitat loss.
Status:
This plant's range is highly restricted, its habitat requirements are narrow, and existing populations
are notably small. The species has been virtually eliminated from private lands by logging and
wetland drainage (Chafin 2000). NatureServe (2008) ranks R. parviflora as critically imperiled in
Alabama, imperiled in Florida, and reports that it is likely extirpated in Georgia (no occurrences
confirmed in recent years). This species is state-listed as endangered in Florida.
Habitat destruction:
Urbanization and fire suppression are the primary threats to R. parviflora (Schotz 2008).
Drainage or other hydrological alteration, timber harvest, and road construction are also
significant destroyers of this species' habitat (Chafin 2000, NatureServe 2008). Off-road vehicle
(ORV) recreation also threatens some sites (Chafin 2000).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Populations of this species in Apalachicola National Forest and on Eglin Air Force Base are
somewhat protected. Though it is listed as endangered in Florida, this designation confers no
substantial regulatory protections to R. parviflora; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately
protect this species.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1037

 Other factors:
Very small population size may compromise the long-term viability of some occurrences
(NatureServe 2008).
References:
Chafin, L. G. 2000. Field guide to the rare plants of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory,
Tallahassee.
Kartesz, J.T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular
flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. First edition. In: Kartesz, J.T., and C.A.
Meacham. Synthesis of the North American Flora, Version 1.0. North Carolina Botanical
Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants
of the south. 2 vols. U.S. Forest Service, Tech. Pub. R8-TP2.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 25, 2010)
Schotz, A.R. 2008. Rangewide status assessment of the small-flowered meadowbeauty (Rhexia
parviflora). Alabama Natural Heritage Program, Auburn University, Alabama. Unpublished report
for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 7 pp. + 4 Appendices.
Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. Working
draft of 11 January 2007. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North Carolina
Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
[http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm (accessed 2007)]

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1038

 Scientific Name:
Rhexia salicifolia
Common Name:
Panhandle Meadow-beauty
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Rhexia salicifolia is endemic to the Florida panhandle and southern Alabama (NatureServe 2008).
It has been identified in Bay, Calhoun, Leon (easternmost), Okaloosa (westernmost), Wakulla,
Walton, and Washington counties in Florida and Covington and Houston counties in Alabama
(Coile 2000, Ward 1979). It has also recently been identified at one site in Georgia (NatureServe
2008). Its range only encompasses 250-1000 square km (100-400 square miles) (NatureServe
2008).
Habitat:
R. salicifolia is a wetland obligate. Under natural conditions, it occurs almost exclusively in
wetlands (Chafin 2000). It prefers moist sandy or peaty soils and full sunlight (Ward 1979, Kral
1983). It can be found on the edges and exposed bottoms of limestone lakes, sinkhole ponds,
depressed marshes, karst ponds, flatwood ponds, and in interdunal swales along the Gulf Coast
(Chafin 2000, Kral and Bostick 1969, Tobe et al. 1998, Ward 1979). The surrounding forest is
often long leaf pine-deciduous scrub oak or pine-evergreen scrub oak, but R. salicifolia is not
found in this dense shade. It is also not found where herbaceous vegetation along the shoreline
becomes too dense (Kral 1983).
Ecology:
R. salicifolia is an herbaceous perennial 8 to 22 inches in height (Chafin 2000). Tubers at its root
tips allow it to survive season to season (Ward 1979). It produces flowers June through
September (Chafin 2000).
Populations:
Only around 50 locations are known for R. salicifolia, with 21 to 80 estimated occurrences
(Chafin 2000). Individual populations are scattered (Ward 1979). Though populations can be
locally abundant, there are only 1000 to 2500 individual plants (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Panhandle meadow-beauty has declined by 10-30 percent because of human activities
(NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the meadow-beauty as critically imperiled in Alabama, imperiled in
Florida, and not ranked in Georgia. It is listed as threatened by the state of Florida, and is a Federal
Species of Concern.
Habitat destruction:
The most significant threat to R. salicifolia populations is habitat alteration due to human
intervention. Converting land to agriculture or silviculture, fragmenting habitat, and individual
disturbances threaten this meadow-beauty (NatureServe 2008). Lakeside development and pine
plantations create erosion, runoff, and sedimentation, which damage the shoreline and alter the
hydrology of karst ponds (Chafin 2000). Bulldozing, root raking, bedding, chopping, filling,

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1039

 ditching, or draining wetlands is detrimental to R. salicifolia (Chafin 2000, Kral 1983).
Recreational use of lakes and ponds leads to the clear cutting of pines and the removal of scrub
oak, leading to erosion and disturbing shorelines (Kral 1983). The margins of privately owned
ponds are often scraped to create artificial beaches, destroying all vegetation along the water’s
edge (Chafin 2000). Frequent mowing during summer and fall months can prevent new seeds
from maturing (Kral 1983). ATV use in the Panhandle meadow-beauty’s habitat will also destroy
populations (NatureServe 2008).

Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
R. salicifolia is listed as a Species of Concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but this
provides it no federal protection. It is also listed as threatened by the state of Florida, but this only
prevents harvest, injury, or destruction of R. salicifolia on public lands or on the private land of
another party. Panhandle meadow-beauty has no protection on private land from the land’s owner,
according to the Preservation of Native Flora of Florida Act.
References:
Chafin, L. G. 2000. Field guide to the rare plants of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory,
Tallahassee.
Clewell, A.F. 1985. Guide to vascular plants of the Florida panhandle. Florida State Univ. Press,
Tallahassee, Florida. 605 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants
of the south. 2 vols. U.S. Forest Service, Tech. Pub. R8-TP2.
Kral, R. and P. E. Bostick. 1969. The genus Rhexia (Melastomaceae). Sida. 3:6.
Tobe, J.D et al. 1998. Florida wetland plants an identification manual. University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Ward, D.B. (ED). 1979. Rare and Endangered Biota of Floria, Vol. 5: Plants. University Press,
Gainesvile.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1040

 Scientific Name:
Rhodacme elatior
Common Name:
Domed Ancylid
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The extant range of the Domed Ancylid consists of 100-250 square km (40-100 square miles) in
Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee (NatureServe 2008). Basch (1963) reported this species as
extant in the Cahaba River in Alabama, and as formerly occurring in the Tennessee River system.
Burch (1989) cites both the Tennessee and Cahaba River systems. Mirarchi (2004) states that it is
poorly known but reported from the Cahaba River system and possibly from the Tennessee River
system.
Habitat:
The Domed Ancylid is found under boulders and slabs in fast to moderate current (NatureServe
2008). Branson and Batch (1970) collected this species from a stream that was 2.5 to 4 feet deep
with sand, mud, and gravel substrate (cited in Bishop 2003).
Populations:
Pierson (1997 pers. comm. cited in NatureServe 2008) reports three extant occurrences of
Domed Ancylid. This species is known from one site in the Little Cahaba in Shelby County and
from three sites in the main channel of the upper Cahaba, though these site may not represent
separate populations (Bogan and Pierson 1993, NatureServe 2008). Total population size for this
species is unknown with a very crude estimate of 50 to 10,000 individuals (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is severely to rapidly declining (decline of 30
percent to greater than 70 percent).
Status:
The Domed Ancylid is critically imperiled in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee (NatureServe
2008). The IUCN ranks this species as Vulnerable. It is described as very rare in Alabama,
Kentucky, and Tennessee (NatureServe 2008). There are only three known extant occurrences of
this species, not all of which may represent individual populations (Pierson 1997 pers. comm. in
NatureServe 2008). Basch (1963) reports that this species may be extirpated from the Tennessee
River system. This limpet is on the Alabama Natural Heritage Program Tracking List. It is a USDA
Forest Service Sensitive Species.
Habitat destruction:
The watershed in Kentucky where the Domed Ancylid occurs has been degraded by runoff from
logging, agriculture, oil drilling, and coal mining (Bishop 2003). Concerning water quality in this
watershed, USFS (2001) states: “Sedimentation and acid mine drainage from abandoned surface
and underground coal mines, brine and oil residue from oil drilling, sedimentation and runoff of
agricultural chemicals and animal wastes from farm land, discharge from domestic wastewater
systems, and sedimentation from roads and timber harvest constitute the primary water quality
issues.” Habitat degradation resulting from recreational impacts also threatens this species (USFS
2001).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1041

 Herrig and Shute (2002) state that rare aquatic snails such as the Domed Ancylid are threatened by
impacts to their habitats from dams and sedimentation. Dams degrade water quality and isolate
populations. Sedimentation inhibits the growth of algae on which snails depend for food (Neves et
al. 1997), causes the erosion of snail shells, and negatively affects the survival of snail eggs (Hart
and Fuller 1974). Sedimentation of snail habitat results from a variety of sources and land-use
activities (Neves et al. 1997).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the Domed Ancylid, and no occurrences
are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). This species is on the Alabama
Natural Heritage Program Tracking List, and is considered a Sensitive Species by the U.S. Forest
Service, but these designations do not provide regulatory protection.
Other factors:
The Domed Ancylid is threatened by water quality degradation. Runoff, chronic pollution, and
pollution events threaten aquatic snails such as the Domed Ancylid (Hart and Fuller 1974, Neves et
al. 1997, Herrig and Shute 2002). Exotic species such as zebra mussels also threaten rare snail
populations in the Southeast (Hart and Fuller 1974, Herrig and Shute 2002).
References:
Basch, P. 1963. A review of the recent freshwater limpet snails of North America. Bulletin of
the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 129: 399-461.
Bishop, V.R. 2003. Viability Assessment Report for Lotic Water (Streams). Daniel Boone
National Forest. July 15, 2003. Available online at:
http://fs.fed.us/r8/boone/documents/planning/revplan/ams/viability_analysis/viaaquatic.pdf . Last
accessed June 26, 2009.
Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Pierson. 1993. Survey of the aquatic gastropods of the Cahaba River Basin,
Alabama: 1992. Final report submitted in October 1993 to Alabama Natural Heritage Program,
Montgomery, Alabama, Contract Number 1922. 20 pp.
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Hart, C.W., Jr.; and S.L.H. Fuller. 1974. Pollution ecology of freshwater invertebrates. New
York: Academic Press. 312 p.
Herrig, J. and P. Shute. 2002. Chapter 23: aquatic animals and their habitats. Southern Region,
USDA Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority. 45 pp. In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G.,
eds. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 pp. Available at:
www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_23e.pdf Last accessed June 8, 2009.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1042

 Neves, R. J., A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams, S. A. Ahlstedt, and P. W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of
aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: A downward spiral of diversity. In Aquatic
Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. G. W. Benz, and D. E. Collins (eds.). Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design & Communications, Decatur,
GA, p. 43-86.
U.S. Forest Service, Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer. 2001. An assessment and strategy
for conservation of aquatic resources on the Daniel Boone National Forest, interim report, April
2001. Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer, VPI. Blacksburg, Va. 166 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1043

 Scientific Name:
Rhynchospora crinipes
Common Name:
Hairy-peduncled Beakrush
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Endemic to the Southeastern Coastal Plain, R. crinipes has been recently observed in Hoke and
Moore Counties, North Carolina, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties in Florida, Greene and
Wayne Counties in Mississippi, and in Baldwin, Conecuh, Covington, Escambia, Mobile, and
Washington Counties, Alabama (TNC 1991-93, NCNHP 1993, Kral 1993, NatureServe 2008). It
was formerly found in Appling and Turner Counties in Georgia, but no recent confirmation of
these occurrences is available and the species is reported as likely extirpated from the state
(NatureServe 2008). It is widely scattered across its diminishing range and most populations are
small.
Habitat:
The beakrush is found along stream- and riversides on narrow banks, sand or clay bars, and
infrequently in streambeds. Preferred substrates may be clay, peat or peaty silt, and gravel
(NatureServe 2008). It commonly occurs within forests composed of cypress (Chamaecyparis),
red maple (Acer rubrum), and swamp titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), and less commonly among various
species of Magnolia, Nyssa, Taxodium, Pinus, and Quercus (Anderson 1988) with a shrub layer
often composed of Vaccinium, Rhododendron, Erigeron, and Carex species. The beakrush
receives little direct sunlight.
Ecology:
The beakrush is perennial and forms dense clumps reaching 1 m in height. It fruits summer
through fall (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are currently roughly 35 known populations of R. crinipes: 17 in Florida, 11 in Alabama,
four in North Carolina, and six from Mississippi. Most occurrences are small and comprised of
just a few individual plants (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
This species is in decline; several historical occurrences are no longer extant (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
Several historical populations of this plant are no longer extant, and those remaining are small and
generally scattered. Florida and Alabama now represent the core of this species' range.
NatureServe (2008) ranks R. crinipes as critically imperiled in Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, and North Carolina. Is listed as endangered in Florida.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss and degradation are the primary threats to this species, which is principally imperiled
by various development and construction projects. Damming of the Little River (North Carolina)
altered streambank habitat so as to render it unsuitable for R. crinipes; anthropogenic alteration of
regional hydrological regime is the most salient rangewide issue for the species. Timber
harvesting, road construction and use, and pollution by agricultural and industrial sources are also

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1044

 cited as threats (NatureServe 2008). Dredging for sand and gravel and military training activities
may also destroy habitat or individuals.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Several populations of this plant occur on Elgin Air Force Base (Santa Rosa County, FL), but they
may be threatened by military training activities. No other occurrences in Florida or Alabama
receive any protection (NatureServe 2008). Though it is listed as endangered in Florida, this
designation affords R. crinipes no substantial regulatory protections; no existing regulatory
mechanisms adequately protect this species or its habitat.
References:
Anderson, L.C. 1988. Status of endangered Rhynchospora crinipes (Cyperaceae). Systematic
Botany 13: 407-410.
Anderson, L.C. Field Survey of Eglin Air Force Base, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and Walton
Counties, Fla. Aug. 1992.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002. Flora of North America north of Mexico.
Vol. 23. Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
xxiv + 608 pp.
Florida Natural Area Inventory. 1993. Special plants and lichens. Tallahassee, FL. May 1993.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 3, 2009.
Sandhills Field Office. 1991-93. The Nature Conservancy's Rare and Endangered Plant Survey
for Fort Bragg and Camp MacKall. Contract #M67004-91-D-0010. Personal observations of
staff, Southern Pines.
The Nature Conservancy. 1993. Rare and endangered plant survey and natural area inventory of
Fort Bragg and Camp MacKall military reservations, North Carolina. Final report by The Nature
Conservancy, Sandhills Field Office, December 1993.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1045

 Scientific Name:
Rhynchospora thornei
Common Name:
Thorne's Beakrush
G Rank:
G3
Range:
Known from widely scattered sites in the Southeast, natural heritage records exist for this species
in Bibb, Cherokee, and Geneva Counties, Alabama, Clay, Jackson, Putnam, St. Johns, and Wakulla
Counties, Florida, Baker, Calhoun, and Floyd Counties, Georgia, and for Brunswick, Onslow, and
Pender Counties, North Carolina (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant occurs along the fluctuating shoreline of limesink ponds, on seeps over calcareous rock
substrate, in wet pine savannahs , and in seasonally wet limestone or dolomite glades (FNA 2003,
NatureServe 2008). It is also frequently recorded in disturbed sites, around agricultural ponds or
in utility corridors.
Ecology:
This perennial plant fruits in late spring and summer (FNA 2003).
Populations:
33 occurrences of this plant were reported as extant in 2003 (NCNHP 2003). Population sizes
have not been reported.
Population Trends:
Trends have not been reported for this species, but it is widely considered to be threatened
(NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Thorne's beakrush as critically imperiled in Alabama, Florida, and
Tennessee, and imperiled in Georgia and North Carolina (not ranked in South Carolina). R.
thornei is also state-listed as endangered in North Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
This species' habitat is widely threatened by land-use change and habitat fragmentation resulting
primarily from urbanization and forest management (Southern Appalachian Species Viability
Project 2002). Because many populations are found along roadsides, they are exposed to road
construction, mowing, and herbicide application used for vegetation management or control and
may be thus extirpated.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is state-listed as endangered in North Carolina, this designation affords the Thorne's
beakrush no substantial regulatory protections. No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately
protect this species.
References:
Flora of North America. 2003. Species account for Rhynchospora thornei. Accessed online
February 1, 2010 <<http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242357925>>

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1046

 LeBlond, R.J., and B.A. Sorrie. 2003. Rhynchospora thornei Status Survey: North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
November 9, 2009)
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1047

 Scientific Name:
Rudbeckia auriculata
Common Name:
Eared Coneflower
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This species is almost entirely restricted to the coastal plains of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida,
though populations have occasionally been reported in adjacent areas of Appalachian Alabama
(NatureServe 2008, Kral 1983). Natural heritage records indicate this species is present in
Alabama's Barbour, Blount, Covington, Crenshaw, Geneva, Jefferson, Pike, Shelby, and St. Clair
Counties, in Florida's Okaloosa County, and in Georgia's Webster County.
Habitat:
The coneflower is found in full sunlight in open bogs, swamps, ditches, swales or wet woodlands,
occasionally in partial shade along edges of hardwood swamps with alder (Alnus), bayberry
(Myrica), buttonbush (Cephalanthus), titi (Cyrilla), and various sedges (Rhynchospora). Soils in
which this species are found are generally high in organic matter and acidity, though basic soils
also host R. auriculata (Diamond and Boyd 2004). Is intolerant of closed canopy conditions
(Schotz 2002).
Ecology:
This perennial species exhibits moderate environmental specificity in that it requires mesic or
wet soils and full or near-full sunlight. It reproduces quickly in suitable growing conditions,
sometimes clonally (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are 32 known occurrences of this flower-- 30 in Alabama,
1 in Florida, and 1 in Georgia. The size of individual populations ranges from fewer than 50 to
more than 1,000 individuals, but in a 2002 survey, roughly one-third of surveyed populations
were comprised of more than 10 individuals (Diamond and Boyd 2004).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the eared coneflower is currently experiencing substantial
declines, though long-term population trends are unknown. Occurrences in natural habitats are in
decline as a result of the effects of unsustainable forestry and agricultural practices, but numerous
populations have established in disturbed sites, e.g., utility corridors, pastures, and roadside
verges that experience periodic mowing; the largest occurrences now reportedly occur in these
disturbed sites.
Status:
This species is in decline across its range: habitat loss and degradation have forced it from much
of its natural habitat, but populations are becoming established in disturbed anthropogenic habitat.
Most remaining populations are small, and very few are considered to be of high quality (Boyd
and Diamond 2004). NatureServe (2008) ranks the eared coneflowers as critically imperiled in
Florida and Georgia and imperiled in Alabama.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1048

 Habitat destruction:
The eared coneflower is severely threatened by the conversion of habitat to agricultural use or to timber
harvest plantations (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002). Changes to soil hydrology
and successional patterns (encroachment of shrubs and trees into previously open areas) resulting from
these land use practices are also of concern. Populations that become established in anthropogenic
habitat are threatened by herbicide application and grazing.
Disease or predation:
Several populations of R. auriculata were found to be infected with a fungus, Fusarium semitectum,
in the late 1990s, but this is no longer considered to be a major threat to this species (Diamond et
al. 2006).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Only two populations of this species are reportedly protected at all (Diamond and Boyd 2004), and
no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the eared coneflower.
Other factors:
Invasive plant species, particularly privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese stiltgrass
(Microstegium vimineum) threaten R. auriculata in some parts of its range (Diamond and Boyd
2004).
References:
Diamond, A.R. 2006. Rudbeckia auriculata infected with a pollen-mimic fungus in Alabama.
Southeastern Naturalist 5(1):103-112
Diamond, A.R. 1992. Status report on Rudbeckia auriculata, clasping Susan. Unpublished report
submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 43 pp.
Diamond, A.R., and R.S. Boyd. 2004. Distribution, habitat characteristics, and population trends
of the rare southeastern endemic Rudbeckia auriculata (Perdue) Kral (Asteraceae). Castanea 69:
249-264.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Accessed online:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed November 30, 2009.
Schotz, A.R. 2000. Status survey on Rudbeckia auriculata in Alabama: eared coneflower. U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1049

 Scientific Name:
Rudbeckia heliopsidis
Common Name:
Sun-facing Coneflower
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Also known as the Little River Black-eyed Susan, this species is endemic to the southeastern
coastal plain, Piedmont, and Appalachian Plateau areas in Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Natural heritage records show this species in Prince George
County, Virginia, Brunswick and Harnett Counties, North Carolina, Berkeley and Oconee
Counties, South Carolina, Bartow, Floyd, Chattooga, and Chattahoochee Counties, Georgia, and in
Dekalb, Cherokee, Macon, Monroe, and Lee Counties in Alabama (NatureServe 2008). This
flower is rare throughout its range, and occurrences are widely disjunct.
Habitat:
This plant occurs in acidic swales, seeps, or bogs within pine-oak woodlands, peaty seeps in
meadows, and sandy alluvium along streambanks, always within moist to wet habitat. It is also
found in upland hickory-oak or oak-pine-hickory woodlands, or open pine/mixed hardwood forest.
It is tolerant of a spectrum of light regimes from full sun to partial shade (Kral 1983,
NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This flower is perennial and flowers July-September (Kral 1983).
Populations:
Currently confirmed occurrences include 17 in Alabama, 5 in Georgia, 5 in South Carolina, and
none in North Carolina or Virginia where it occurred historically (NatureServe 2008). Population
sizes are highly variable, and have not been reported for most populations. Some of the largest
populations are located within utility corridors or along highway verges.
Population Trends:
The majority of recently confirmed occurrences are either stable or declining; fire suppression
and habitat loss to development are cited as the principle causes of decline where it occurs
(NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks R. heliopsidis as critically imperiled in Georgia, Virginia, and South
Carolina, and imperiled in Alabama. It is state listed as endangered in North Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
The primary threats to this species' habitat include the drainage of upland swales or ponds, fire
suppression which leads to altered patterns of succession, construction and development, and
other land management or land use change that destroys and degrades habitat (Kral 1983, Southern
Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002, ALNHP 1994). Because some of the largest
populations are located within utility corridors or along highway verges, they are potentially
threatened by herbidice applications. Grazing by cattle, hogs, or other livestock may destroy
habitat and/or individuals of R. heliopsidis (Kral 1983).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1050

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
A few populations in Alabama and South Carolina occur on state or federal lands but these are not
properly managed for the persistence and viability of R. heliopsidis. Though it is listed as
endangered in North Carolina, this designation offers the sunfacing coneflower no substantial
regulatory protections; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species or its
habitat.
References:
Alabama Natural Heritage Program. 1994. Tri-state comprehensive study, Alabama-CoosaTallapoosa and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basins: Rudbeckia heliopsidis.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed
January 19, 2010.
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1051

 Scientific Name:
Salix floridana
Common Name:
Florida Willow
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Florida Willow is endemic to the coastal plain of northern and central Florida and southern
Georgia (Kral 1983, Ward 1979). It is known from Alachua, Columbia, Jackson, Jefferson,
Lafayetta, Lake, Levy, Marion, Orange, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, and Suwannee counties, Florida,
from Covington County, Alabama, and from Pulaski and Early counties, Georgia (Godfrey 1988,
NatureServe 2008). It has not been collected in Georgia since 1948 (Patrick 1995). It is patchily
distributed across its range.
Habitat:
S. floridana is found in forested floodplains, swamps, and hydric hammocks, and along the banks
of springheads, spring runs, streams, and ditches (Chafin 2000, Clewell 1985, Ward 1979). It
prefers mature riparian corridors with minimal weedy species (NatureServe 2008). It occurs in
soils that are calcareous and usually inundated, and is often found in sandy silt (Kral 1983). It is
rarely found outside of wetlands (Chafin 2000). Florida willow is shade-intolerant, and seedlings
require wet soil and ample sunlight. Saplings are often found in cleared areas, sunny banks or
sandbars, or blowdowns where sunlight penetrates beyond the canopy (Kral 1983).
Ecology:
Florida willow is a perennial, deciduous understory shrub or small tree, rarely over 4 m tall
(NatureServe 2008, Ward 1979). It begins flowering mid-February to early April and produces
fruit from April to May (Patrick 1995). It is sexually dioecious, producing male and female
catkins on separate trees (Chafin 2000, Ward 1979).
Populations:
There were 15 known populations of S. floridana as of 2000 (Chafin 2000). Fewer than 1,000
individuals are known, as populations are rarely large.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that populations of S. floridana are experiencing substantial declines.
Status:
The Florida willow is now absent from several historical sites and is declining in most locations
where it remains. Distribution is patchy across its range because the habitat it requires is naturally
somewhat rare and is being destroyed by anthropogenic activities. NatureServe (2008) ranks the
Florida willow as critically endangered in Alabama and Georgia and imperiled in Florida.
Populations around Marianna, Florida and along the Chattahoochee River have likely been
extirpated by habitat loss resulting from energy development (Argus 1986).
Habitat destruction:
Anthropogenic alteration of regional hydrology harms Florida willow populations, which are
highly sensitive to changes in hydrologic regime (Patrick 1995). Draining of floodplains and wet
hammocks, clearing of ditches and streambanks, or other alteration to hydrological patterns
within this species' habitat make conditions inhospitable (Chafin 2000). Silviculture and agriculture also
threaten this species (Chafin 2000, NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1052

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Of the 15 populations of S. floridana known in 2000, 10 are located on public lands: the Ocala
National Forest, Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Cross Florida Greenway, Upper Lakes Basin
Watershed, Spring Hammock Preserve, and Seminole State Forest host known populations (Chafin
2000, NatureServe 2008). It is listed as endangered in both Florida and Georgia, but this
designation offers the Florida willow no substantial regulatory protections. No existing regulatory
mechanisms adequately protect this species.
Other factors:
The use of herbicides, and pollution or sedimentation generated by agricultural or silvicultural land
uses also significantly degrade habitat and may cause local extirpation (Chafin 2000, NatureServe
2008).
References:
Coile, N.C., and M.A. Garland. 2003. Notes on Florida's endangered and threatened plants.
Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry.
Godfrey, R.K. 1988. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of northern Florida and adjacent Georgia
and Alabama. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. 734 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
Kurz, H., and R.K. Godfrey. 1962. Trees of northern Florida. Univ. Florida Press, Gainesville.
311 pp.
Little, E.L., Jr. 1979. Checklist of United States trees (native and naturalized). Agriculture
Handbook No. 541. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 375 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 3, 2009.
Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia: an information
manual on plants designated by the State of Georgia as endangered, threatened, rare, or unusual.
Georgia Dept. Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Natural Heritage
Program, Social Circle, Georgia. 218 pp + appendices.
Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Rare Species and Natural Community Information. 2001.
Special Concern Plant Species in Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
<http://www.georgiawildlife.com/content/specialconcernplants.asp>.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1053

 Scientific Name:
Sarracenia purpurea var. montana
Common Name:
No common name
G Rank:
T2

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
This plant is known from the Blue Ridge Mountains and adjacent piedmont area of North Carolina,
South Carolina, and northeastern Georgia. Weakley (2000) reports this species from Greenville
County, South Carolina, and from Rabun County, Georgia; counties are not listed for North
Carolina.
Habitat:
This plant occurs in mountain and seepage bogs (Weakley 2000).
Ecology:
Sarracenia purpurea var. montana is carnivorous.
Populations:
"A few dozen" populations of this species have been reported (Weakley 2000). Total population
size is unknown.
Population Trends:
Population trend has not reported for this carnivorous plant.
Status:
Rare throughout its small range, this species is threatened primarily by habitat loss and
degradation resulting from human activities. NatureServe (2008) has not yet ranked this species.
It is classified as endangered by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
Sarracenia purpurea var. montana is threatened by broad changes in regional hydrology, fire
suppression, and outright habitat destruction (International Carnivorous Plant Society 2002).
Overutilization:
This carnivorous plant may be threatened by collection in some areas (Rice 2002).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
International Carnivorous Plant Society. 2002. Available:
http://www.carnivorousplants.org/conservation/projects.html. Accessed August 5, 2002.
Rice, B.A. 2002. Carnivorous Plant FAQ v9.0. Available: http://www.sarracenia.com/faq.html.
Accessed August 5, 2002.
Weakley, A.S. 2000. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia: working draft of May 15, 2000.
Unpublished draft, The Nature Conservancy, Southern Resource Office.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1054

 Scientific Name:
Sarracenia rubra ssp. gulfensis
Common Name:
Gulf Sweet Pitcherplant
G Rank:
T2

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
The Gulf sweet pitcherplant is restricted to the western portion of the Florida panhandle from
approximately western Holmes County into Santa Rosa County (Schnell 1979). This plant's total
range is likely less than 100 square miles (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The pitcherplant is found in sandy springhead bogs, often along the headwaters of small streams or
margins of small ponds or slow creeks and rivers. It prefers year-round inundation and full
sunlight exposure (Schnell 1979).
Ecology:
The pitcherplant is an insectivorous perennial herb.
Populations:
Number of populations and total population size are not known for this species.
Population Trends:
The pitcherplant is in decline as a result of habitat loss (Schnell 1979, NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The pitcherplant is restricted to a very small range where it is threatened by anthropogenic habitat
loss and is in decline. NatureServe (2008) ranks this subspecies as imperiled in Florida. It is
ranked as endangered by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss threatens this species across its extremely narrow range. Anthropogenic changes to
local hydrological patterns (dams, diversions, drainage), fire suppression, residential
development, and conversion of habitat to agricultural or silvicultural uses are responsible for the
habitat loss that imperils this species. Schnell (1979) reports that high quality occurrences have
been extirpated by housing developments, shopping centers, road construction, and clearing for
agriculture or forestry.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The pitcherplant occurs on Eglin Air Force Base (Santa Rosa County, FL) but may be threatened
there by military training activities. No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this
species or its habitat.
References:
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 3, 2009.
Schnell, D.E. 1979. Sarracenia rubra Walter ssp. gulfensis: a new subspecies. Castanea.
44(4):217-223.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1055

 Scientific Name:
Sarracenia rubra ssp. wherryi
Common Name:
Wherry's Sweet Pitcherplant
G Rank:
T3

IUCN Status:
EN - Endangered

Range:
This pitcherplant is known from a very small range in Mississippi, Alabama, and possibly Florida.
Its distribution is sporadic and localized. Numerous historical occurrences are no longer extant
(NatureServe 2008). Natural heritage records exist for the following counties: Baldwin,
Covington, Escambia, Mobile, Munroe, and Washington Counties, Alabama, Greene and Wayne
Counties, Mississippi, and Escambia County, Florida (NatureServe 2008, Wunderlin and Hansen
2002).
Habitat:
The pitcherplant most frequently inhabits drier microsites within seepage or pitcher plant bogs,
and is also found in open savannas, bay head forests, and some anthropogenic habitats such as
ditches. It has a narrow range of tolerance for soil moisture levels (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This carnivorous plant flowers March-April.
Populations:
There were 80 extant occurrences of this species in Alabama as of 2002, though only 21 of those
were ranked as having either good or excellent viabiliity (NatureServe 2008). Six occurrences
were reported as extant in Mississippi as of 1985. Population data for the other states in which
these species occurs are not available.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) determined that this species is in severe decline (defined as a decline of 70%
or more in population, range, area occupied, and/or the number or condition of occurrences).
Numerous historical occurrences are no longer extant, and habitat is widely threatened by various
anthropogenic factors.
Status:
Few populations of this species have been recently confirmed; this species' range appears to be in
decline and numerous records of the destruction of populations exist. NatureServe (2008) ranks
this species as critically imperiled in Mississippi and vulnerable in Alabama. It is classified as
endangered by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
Fire suppression is perhaps the greatest threat to Sarracenia rubra ssp. wherryi's habitat; in the past
60 years, wildfires have been increasingly suppressed because of concerns about timber
production, agriculture, and human safety. Fire-maintained species like S. rubra ssp. wherryi have
experienced substantial declines as a result (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project
2002). Wholesale habitat destruction by the establishment of timber plantations, agricultural,
residential, and commercial developments, and road construction are also a major factor in this
species' decline (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1056

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
One occurrence of this species is found in Alabama's Conecuh National Forest, and may be
appropriately protected. No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Wherry's
sweet pitcherplant.
References:
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 13, 2010)
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.
Wunderlin, R.P., and B.F. Hansen. 2002. Guide to Florida's vascular plants. University Press:
Tampa, FL.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1057

 Scientific Name:
Schoenoplectus hallii
Common Name:
Hall's Bulrush
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Hall's bulrush is known from a fairly wide range throughout the eastern United States, but
occurrences are widely disjunct and scattered, and the species is declining overall. Natural
heritage records indicate that S. hallii is currently present in Alexander, Cass, Mason, and Morgan
Counties, Illinois, Daviess, Lake, and Porter Counties, Indiana, Harper, Harvey, and Reno
Counties, Kansas, Christian County, Kentucky, Allegan and Muskegon Counties, Michigan,
Howell and Scott Counties, Missouri, Brown, Garfield, Holt, Loup, Rock, and Wheeler Counties,
Nebraska, Comanche and Woods Counties, Oklahoma,and and Dane County, Wisconsin
(NatureServe 2008, Stebbins 2003). It was formerly present in Iowa, Massachusetts, and Georgia
but has not been observed in those states since the early to mid-20th century (FNA 2002,
O'Kennon and McLemore 2004).
Habitat:
This bulrush is generally found on the shores and bottoms of shallow, ephemeral pools, sinkhole
ponds, coastal plain marshes, sandy swales, and comparable habitats where annually variable water
levels keep the sandy banks free of other competing vegetation (FNA 2002, Crispin and Penskar
1990, NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Though it is often considered an annual, S. hallii does not germinate reliably in the same site each
year: seeds remain viable in substrate for several years and only germinate under specific
conditions. Populations in one location may be large in one year and non-existent the next, and the
factors that induce germination are not well-understood.
In the northern part of its range, S. hallii fruits between late August and late September (Crispin
and Penskar 1990).
Populations:
The total number of occurrences of this rush is not known, but recent surveys put estimates at
roughly 100, with the majority found in Illinois (Stebbins 2003). Because of the annual variation
in population size at any given site, a reliable estimate of global population size is not available.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species has experienced substantial declines in recent
decades as a reuslt of habitat destruction, though longer-term population trends are not known.
The total number of sites observed in recent rangewide surveys is declining, but this may be
attributable to the variable nature of annual germination rates.
Status:
Known from scattered locations across its range, this species is reportedly in decline and
threatened by widespread habitat destruction, and has been extirpated from several states where it
was historically present. Historical sites in Massachusetts were reportedly extirpated by sewage
and industrial effluent, and sites in Kentucky were destroyed by construction of a truck stop

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1058

 (Stebbins 2003). NatureServe (2008) ranks S. hallii as critically imperiled in Illinois, Indiana,
Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin, and imperiled in Missouri.
Habitat destruction:
Threats are variable across this species' range. Rangewide, the most significant threat is habitat
destruction and/or degradation, largely caused by groundwater depletion for irrigation purposes,
and dams, diversions, dredging, or other anthropogenic changes to regional hydrological patterns.
Residential, commercial, agricultural, and recreational development are also substantial threats
(McKenzie et al. 2007, Penskar and Higman 2002). ORV (off-road vehicle) recreation has caused
significant damage to habitat occupied by S. hallii in Michigan and currently threatens the
viability of several sites (Penskar and Higman 2002, MNFI 2000).
Disease or predation:
Excessive consumption by Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and mute swans (Cygnus olor)
threatens some populations of S. hallii (McKenzie et al. 2007).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Populations occur in the Huron-Manistee and Mark Twain National Forests, on the Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore and in the Sand Prairie-Scrub Oak Nature Preserve (Illinois) - these receive
some degree of protection (Stebbins 2003). NatureServe (2008) states: "All known populations
should receive protection. Protection efforts must ensure the integrity of water within the
watershed in which the element occurs. Sufficient buffer must exist to protect the site from
herbicide drift, alterations in water table and similar potentially destructive actions."
Other factors:
Invasive plant species such as purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) may outcompete or inhibit
germination of S. hallii, and currently threaten sites in Indiana and Kansas (McKenzie 1998, Ostlie
1990). Population isolation is becoming an increasingly severe problem for S. hallii - isolated
populations are more vulnerable to stochastic extinction and less resilient to environmental change
because of low or nonexistent gene flow (McKenzie et al. 2007). Hybridization with S.
saximontanus also threatens the integrity of this species in some areas (Stebbins 2003).
References:
Crispin, S., and M. Penskar. 1990. Scirpus Hallii Gray (Hall's clubrush). Unpublished abstract for
Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Endangered Species Manual.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2002. Flora of North America north of Mexico.
Vol. 23. Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Cyperaceae. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
xxiv + 608 pp.
McKenzie, P.M. 1998. Hall’s bulrush (Schoenoplectus hallii) Status Assessment. US Fish &
Wildlife Service. Columbia, MO. 46 pp.
McKenzie, P.M., S.G. Smith, and M. Smith. 2007. Status of Schoenoplectus hallii (Hall's
bulrush) (Cyperaceae) in the United States. J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 1(1): 457-481.
Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 2000. Element Occurrence Records for Scirpus hallii.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1059

 NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life. Available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 3, 2009.
O'Kennon, R.J., and C. McLemore. 2004. Schoenoplectus hallii (Cyperaceae), a globally
threatened species new for Texas. Sida 21(2): 1201-1204.
Ostlie, W.R. 1990. Element Stewardship Abstract for Scirpus hallii—Hall’s bulrush. The Nature
Conservancy. Minneapolis, MN. 8 pp.
Penskar, M.R., and P.J. Higman. 2002. Special plant abstract for Schoenoplectus hallii (Hall's
bulrush). Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 4 pp.
[http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/abstracts/botany/Schoenoplectus_hallii.pdf]
Stebbins, S. 2003. Conservation assessment for Hall's bulrush, Schoenoplectus hallii. USDA
Forest Service, Eastern Region. Accessed online December 16, 2009
<<www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/.../plant_Schoenoplectus_hallii-Halls_Bulrush.pdf >>
Weakley, A. S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. Working
draft of 11 January 2007. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North Carolina
Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Online. Available:
http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm (accessed 2007).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1060

 Scientific Name:
Scutellaria ocmulgee
Common Name:
Ocmulgee Skullcap
G Rank:
G2
Range:
The Ocmulgee Skullcap is endemic to areas near major rivers along Georgia's Fall Line and in
parts of neighboring South Carolina (Patrick et al. 1995).
Habitat:
This plant occurs in mesic hardwood or bluff forests along river banks and ravine slopes (GADNR
1996). It is associated with old growth hardwood forest, prefers rich soil, and is often found with
geranium, heartleaf, and lop-seed (USACE 2008).
Ecology:
This perennial herb reproduces vegetatively and sexually, and blooms June-October (NatureServe
2008).
Populations:
This plant is known from approximately ten widely-scattered locations along the Oconee,
Ocmulgee, and Savannah Rivers (GADNR 1996, NatureServe 2008). Population sizes have not
been reported.
Population Trends:
Population trends have not been reported for this species, but major habitat loss is widely
documented.
Status:
This plant is endemic to a small range, within which it is known from relatively few (10) scattered
locations, and significant habitat loss is ongoing. NatureServe (2008) ranks the Ocmulgee
skullcap as imperiled in Georgia, where it is state-listed as threatened.
Habitat destruction:
Significant habitat loss in this region is a major threat to the survival of this species. Riverside
residential development and recreational activities are ongoing and extensive (Patrick et al. 1995,
NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is listead as threatened in the state of Georgia, this designation offers the Ocmulgee
skullcap no substantial regulatory protections; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately
protect this species from ongoing threats.
Other factors:
Invasive exotic species like the Japanese honeysuckle, Lonicera japonica, potentially threaten the
skullcap (Patrick et al. 1995, NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1061

 References:
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 1996. Piedmont ecoregional overview. Accessed
online February 2, 2010 <<www1.gadnr.org/cwcs/PDF/11_Piedmont.pdf>>
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
February 2, 2010).
Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia: an information
manual on plants designated by the State of Georgia as endangered, threatened, rare, or unusual.
Georgia Dept. Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Natural Heritage
Program, Social Circle, Georgia. 218 pp + appendices.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Threatened and endangered species of the
Upper Savannah River Basin. Accessed online February 2, 2010
<<www.sas.usace.army.mil/endspec/T&E%20Manual%202008.pdf >>

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1062

 Scientific Name:
Sideroxylon thornei
Common Name:
Swamp Buckthorn
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Also called the Georgia bully, S. thornei is known from southern Georgia and a few scattered
occurrences in adjacent parts of Alabama and Florida. Natural heritage records show this species
was recently confirmed in Early, Calhoun, Baker, Miller, Decatur, and Liberty Counties, Georgia,
in Franklin, Escambia, and Jackson Counties, Florida, and in Houston County, Alabama (Anderson
1996).
Habitat:
This plant is found in low-lying oak flatwoods where soils remain saturated for long periods after
rain or flooding, and also in wetlands overlying limestone formations (Chafin 2007, NatureServe
2008).
Ecology:
The buckthorn flowers during May and June, and fruits August-October (Patrick et al. 1995).
Populations:
This species is reported from 12 locations in Georgia, one in Alabama, and four in Florida
(Anderson 1996). The size of individual populations is not reported.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) determined that the swamp buckthorn is experiencing very rapid decline due
to habitat loss.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Alabama and Florida and
imperiled in Georgia. It is state listed as endangered in Georgia.
Habitat destruction:
S. thornei has already experienced substantial habitat loss to wetland drainage and subsequent
conversion of habitat to agricultural use or timber plantations (Patrick et al. 1995). Continuing
threats include drainage, road construction or maintenance, and other activities that affect local
hydrological regimes (NatureServe 2008). At the Fort Steward site in Georgia, this species is
potentially threatened by hydrological impacts caused by road construction or expansion and deer
browsing (K. Lutz, pers. comm. cited in NatureServe 2008).
Disease or predation:
Browsing by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) may threaten some populations, as
evidenced by low fruit set in these areas (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Several occurrences in Georgia occur on protected lands, though the status of these populations is
not reported. While it is listed as endangered in the state of Georgia, this designation affords the
swamp buckthorn no substantial regulatory protections; no existing regulatory mechanisms
adequately protect S. thornei or its habitat.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1063

 References:
Anderson, L. C. 1996. New geographical and morphological data for Sideroxylon thornei
(Sapotaceae). Sida 17(2): 343-348.
Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia.
McCollum, Jerry L., and David R. Ettman. 1977. Georgia's Protected Plants. Resource planning
section, OPR; Endangered Plant Program, Georgia Dept. of Natural Res.; Soil Conserva- tion
Service, Atlanta, GA. 64 p.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
November 9, 2009)
Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia: an information
manual on plants designated by the State of Georgia as endangered, threatened, rare, or unusual.
Georgia Dept. Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Natural Heritage
Program, Social Circle, Georgia. 218 pp + appendices.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1064

 Scientific Name:
Sigmodon hispidus insulicola
Common Name:
Insular Cotton Rat
G Rank:
T1

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The total range of the insular cotton rat is less than 250 square km in Lee, Sarasota, and Charlotte
counties, Florida. This species occurs on Captiva Island, Sanibel Island, Pine Island, Little Pine
Island, and on Chadwick Beach near Englewood, all near Charlotte Harbor (Layne 1978,
NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
The insular cotton rat occurs in tidal marshes and maritime hammock edges where it constructs
runways among dense vegetation (Layne 1978). On Sanibel Island, the insular cotton rat uses
varied habitats which include drier areas of freshwater marshes with tall, dense emergent
vegetation, open dry grass fields, and mixed grass and brushlands. On Captiva Island, it ocurrs in
grassy areas. On Pine and Little Pine Islands it occurs in dense areas of Spartina patens, in pinepalmetto stands, and in wet areas in garbage dumps (Layne 1978, NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
Lactating and pregnant females have been detected in May and August, with litter sizes of 2-4.
Populations of this species apparently undergo large annual fluctuations (Layne 1978).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are 6-20 populations of this subspecies. Abundance
information is not available.
Population Trends:
Population trend data are not available for this rare subspecies.
Status:
The insular cotton rat has a limited range in southern Florida. This critically imperiled (T1S1)
subspecies occurs in a heavily developed area. It is ranked as near threatened by the IUCN and as a
Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Florida.
Habitat destruction:
Habitat destruction for development is a major threat for the insular cotton rat, which occurs in an
area heavily developed for retirement and resort use (NatureServe 2008). This subspecies’
coastal marsh habitat is threatened by commercial and residential development, dikes and marsh
impoundments, invasive species, and residential sewage discharge (Scott 2004). Its dry prairie
habitat is threatened by overgrazing, altered fire regime, invasive vegetation and invasive hogs and
armadillos, and increasing development pressure (Scott 2004).
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2005) reports that the cotton rat’s salt
marsh habitat is very highly threatened by fragmentation, coastal development, and sedimentation,
and highly threatened by the construction of roads, bridges and causeways, incompatible industrial
operations, dam operations and the incompatible release of water, climate variability, inadequate
stormwater management, surface water withdrawal, channel modification, and incompatible

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1065

 wildlife and fisheries management strategies.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which adequately protect the insular cotton rat. It is a
species of greatest conservation need in Florida, but this designation conveys no regulatory
protection. This animal is known to occur on Charlotte Harbor State Reserve, and it might occur
on Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge.
Other factors:
The insular cotton rat’s coastal marsh habitat is threatened by sea-level rise resulting from global
climate change (Scott 2004). Its habitat is also threatened by invasive vegetation and invasive hogs
and armadillos (Scott 2004). Tidal inundation from tropical storms and hurricanes also threatens
this subspecies (Enge et al. 2003).
References:
Enge, K. M., B. A. Millsap, T. J. Doonan, J. A. Gore, N. J. Douglass, and G. L. Sprandel. 2003.
Conservation plans for biotic regions in Florida containing multiple rare or declining wildlife
taxa. Final Report. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida,
USA.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative.
Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Hall, E. Raymond. 1981. The Mammals of North America, Vols. I & II. John Wiley & Sons, New
York, New York. 1181 pp.
Howell, A. H. 1943. Two new cotton rats from Florida. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 56:73-76.
Layne, J. N., editor. 1978. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. 1. Mammals. State of
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. xx + 52 pp.
Peppers, L. L., and R. D. Bradley. 2000. Cryptic species in SIGMODON HISPIDUS: evidence
from DNA sequences. Journal of Mammalogy 81:332-343.
Scott, C. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Animals of Florida and Their Habitats. University of
Texas Press. 381 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1066

 Scientific Name:
Simpsonaias ambigua
Common Name:
Salamander Mussel
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
CD - Conservation

Range:
The salamander mussel is a freshwater species native to the eastern United States; it is present in
Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, possibly New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Ontario. Though it is widely distributed
and locally abundant in some areas, this species is considered rare and local extirpations have
been so widespread as to constitute a decline in the total area of occupancy. It is thought to be
extirpated from Iowa, and possibly from New York as well (NatureServe 2008). Historically, this
species was found throughout the upper Mississippi River drainage, and as far south as
Tennessee’s Cumberland River drainage, though Parmalee and Bogan (1998) reported it
extirpated from this drainage since no new specimens had been found since 1965. It is
considered rare in Ohio, where it is known from the lower Little Scioto River and from Salt Creek
(Watters 1992). In Pennsylvania it is known from the middle Allegheny-Redbank drainage, and
possibly from the French and Lower Monongahela River drainages (PA NHP 2007 as cited in
NatureServe 2008). In Missouri it is known only from the Bourbeuse River (Oesch 1995). In
Illinois, it was known from the Kankakee and Vermillion River drainages, but it has not been
collected for over 30 years (Cummings and Mayer 1997). In Kentucky, it is sporadically found in
the upper Green River, and also occurs in the north fork of the Red River drainage (Cicerello and
Schuster 2003, Clarke 1988). In Indiana, it is still present in some Wabash tributaries, Graham
Creek, and in the Maumee and Tippecanoe Rivers (Fisher 2006, Harmon 1989, Harmon 1992,
Cummings and Berlocher 1990). Arkansas’ populations are limited to the Spring and Little Red
Rivers (Harris and Gordon 1987, Harris et al. 1997). In Canada, the only known remaining
population is found in the Sydenham River, though another may still be present in the Thames
River based on a single recent specimen (Metcalfe-Smith et al. 2003, Cudmore et al. 2004,
Watson et al. 2000).
Habitat:
This species is primarily found in areas of swift current, in sand or silt substrate under large, flat
stones (Buchanan 1980, Clarke 1985, Oesch 1984, 1995, Parmalee and Bogan 1998). Across its
range, it also occurs in all types of freshwater habitat, including creeks, streams, and lakes
(Cudmore et al. 2004).
Ecology:
Reproductive ecology is similar to that of most other freshwater mussels, but this mussel uses an
amphibian as a glochidial host instead of a fish; the only known glochidial host for the salamander
mussel is the mudpuppy, Necturus maculosus (Howard 1915, 1951, Bequaert et al. 1998).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are 21-80 extant occurrences of this mussel, stating,
"Although widely distributed and abundant in some areas, this species is still considered rare in all
states where it is found and recently local extirpations have been occurring across nearly its

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1067

 range to the point where declines in area of occupancy have occurred." In appropriate habitat this
species can be locally abundant, and total population size is thought to be at least one million
individuals. Numerous historical occurrences have been extirpated, and many remaining populations are
small and isolated.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that this mussel has declined by up to 50 percent in the long-term,
and has continued to decline in the short-term by up to 30 percent, stating, "While this species is
easily overlooked, intense searches in areas where the species has previously been indicate
decline (Stansbery, 1970; Clarke, 1985). Sietman (2003) reports it extirpated from the
Mississippi River below St. Anthony Falls and portions of the Minnesota River drainage in
Minnesota. Cummings and Mayer (1997) report it may be extirpated in Illinois. In Canada, it has
been extirpated from the Cedar and Detroit Rivers by the zebra mussel and only a single
population remains in the Sydenham River in Ontario (Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey,
2004) and possibly Lower Thames (Watson et al., 2000; Cudmore et al., 2004). In the 19th
Century, it was collected from several sites near Buffalo including Lake Erie, Buffalo Creek
[River], and Cayuga Creek at Lancaster in New York (Strayer and Jirka, 1997)."
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (2010) reports that a projected 80 percent
population reduction is expected in the state within the next 10 years.
Status:
Though it is still widely distributed, this species is considered rare across its range, and
continuing declines have resulted in a decline in the total area of occupancy (NatureServe 2008).
NatureServe (2008) reports that the salamander mussel is critically imperiled in Arkansas,
Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia, imperiled in Indiana,
Kentucky, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and vulnerable in Ohio. It is endangered in Canada, and is
ranked by the IUCN as "conservation dependent." It is a federal Candidate (Category 2), and is
endangered in Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Missouri, threatened in Wisconsin, and a
species of special concern in Indiana and Ohio. Its rank is being changed from special concern
(Williams et al. 1993) to threatened by the American Fisheries Society (draft 2010, in review).
Habitat destruction:
The salamander mussel has been extirpated from many historical locations due to habitat loss and
degradation, and many activities pose an ongoing threat to the species. A primary threat to this
mussel is impoundment. For example, in Minnesota, this mussel is threatened by high streamflow variations on the St. Croix River caused by a hydropelectric dam operating on a seasonal
peaking regime (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2010).
Other known threats to this mussel include channelization, dredging, industrial and residential
development, agriculture, forestry, sand and gravel quarrying, oil and gas drilling, and coal mining
(Carman 2002, Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2005, FWS 2006, Michigan
Natural Features Inventory 2007, Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources 2010).
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (2010) reports that the Allegheny River pool 5
subpopulation of this mussel “is under direct threat from proposed commercial sand and gravel
operations. . . . the lock and dam system in the Allegheny and Ohio Rivers, combined with
maintenance/commercial sand and gravel dredging, have altered and destroyed Salamander mussel
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1068

 habitat, eliminated habitat continuity and genetically isolated subpopulations occurring in the
Allegheny and Monongahela River systems. Allegheny River pool 5 has recently received
authorization for dredging.”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is listed by several states, these designations do not protect the salamander mussel's
habitat, and habitat degradation is the primary threat to its continued existence. No existing
regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species from the multitude of threats it faces.
Other factors:
The salamander mussel is threatened by water pollution from many sources (NatureServe 2008). It
is sensitive to siltation and water quality changes resulting from impoundment (Carman 2002).
Known threats to this mussel include industrial and residential discharge, siltation, herbicide and
surface run-off, acid mine drainage, wastewater discharge, animal wastes, and toxic chemical spills
(Carman 2002, Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2005, FWS 2006, Michigan
Natural Features Inventory 2007). The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (2010) states:
"Anthropogenic disturbances (that is, disturbances derived from human activities) such as acute or
chronic pollution events could destroy remaining live Salamander mussels in Dunkard Creek or
either Allegheny River subpopulation. Sedimentation from oil and gas developments, forestry and
agricultural practices could have an adverse effect on mussel/host interactions and reduce
Salamander mussel recruitment. The Salamander mussel is the only known North American mussel
to use an amphibian as a host. Any alteration or reduction to host habitat (for example, loss of
large flat rocks, sediment burial of large flat rocks) is likely to alter host numbers or behavior and
reduce Salamander mussel recruitment."
Invasive mussel species are also a known threat to the salamander mussel (FWS 2006, Michigan
Natural Features Inventory 2007). In the Mississippi River and its tributaries, the salamander
mussel is also being impacted by the infestation of nonnative zebra mussels, which attach
themselves in large numbers to the shells of native mussels, eventually causing death by
suffocation (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2010). Zebra mussel invasion has
contributed to the extirpation of the salamander mussel from the Cedar and Detroit Rivers
(Metcalfe-Smith and Cudmore-Vokey 2004). Zebra mussels have colonized the Allegheny River,
Ohio River and French Creek, and salamander mussel mortality from zebra mussel infestation is
expected (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 2010).
Any factor which threatens the mudpuppy also threatens the salamander mussel (Carman 2002,
Michigan Natural Features Inventory 2007).
This mussel is also threatened by population isolation and low gene flow (Kentucky Dept. of Fish
and Wildlife Resources 2005).The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (2010) reports that
the Allegheny River pool 6 subpopulation of this mussel is threatened by genetic isolation, natural
mortality, and the threat of catastrophic events.
References:
Buchanan, A.C. 1980. Mussels (naiades) of the Merrimac River Basin. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Aquatic Series, 17: 1-68.
Carman, S.M. 2002. Special animal abstract for Simpsonaias ambigua (Salamander mussel).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1069

 Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 2 pp.
Clark, C.F. 1988. Some fresh-water mussels from the Red River drainage, Kentucky.
Malacology Data Net, 2(3/4): 100-104
Clarke, A. H. 1985. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part II: Lasmigona and
Simpsonais. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology No.399. 75pp.
Cudmore, B., C.A. MacKinnon, and S.E. Madzia. 2004. Aquatic species at risk in the Thames
River watershed, Ontario. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2707:
123 pp.
Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater
mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pages 129-145 in: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer,
and T.J. Naimo (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the
future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.
Cummings, K.S. and J.M. Berlocher. 1990. The naiades or freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) of the Tippecanoe River, Indiana. Malacological Review, 23: 83-98.
Fisher, B.E. 2006. Current status of freshwater mussels (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash River
drainage of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 115(2): 103-109
Gordon, M.E. and J.B. Layzer. 1989. Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of the Cumberland River
review of life histories and ecological relationships. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
Report, 89(15): 1-99.
Harmon, J.L. 1989. Freshwater bivalve mollusks (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Graham Creek, a small
southeastern Indiana stream. Malacology Data Net, 2(5/6): 113-121.
Harmon, J.L. 1992. Naiades (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Sugar Creek, east fork White River
drainage, in central Indiana. Malacology Data Net, 3(1-4): 31-42.
Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1987. Distribution and status of rare and endangered mussels
(Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of
Science, 41: 49-56.
Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997.
Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in
Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 51: 66-89.
Havlik, M.E. and D.H. Stansbery. 1978. The naiad mollusks of the Mississippi River in the
vicinity of Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union, 1977:
9-12.
Howard, A. D. 1915. Some exceptional cases of breeding among the Unionidae. The Nautilus
29(1):4-11.
Howard, A.D. 1951. A river mussel parasitic on a salamander. Natural History Miscellanea, 77:
1-6.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1070

 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2005. Kentucky's Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed March 31, 2010 at:
http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/Volume%20II/Bivalvia/Bivalvia.htm#344
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L. and B. Cudmore-Vokey. 2004. National general status assessment of
freshwater mussels (Unionacea). National Water Research Institute / NWRI Contribution No.
04-027. Environment Canada, March 2004. Paginated separately.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., J. Di Maio, S.K. Staton, and S.R. De Solla. 2003. Status of the freshwater
mussel communities of the Sydenham River, Ontario, Canada. American Midland Naturalist,
150: 37-50.
Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 2007. Rare Species Explorer (Web Application). Available
online at http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/explorer [Accessed Apr 1, 2010]
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2010. Rare Species Guide. Accessed April 1,
2010 at:
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=IMBIV41
010
Oesch, R. D. 1984. Missouri naiades: a guide to the mussels of Missouri. Missouri Department
of Conservation. Jefferson City, Missouri. 270 pp.
Parmalee, P. W., and A. E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. The University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2010. Rules and Regulations Title 58 Code CH. 75 40
Pa.B. 620. Saturday January 30, 2010. Accessed April 1, 2010 at:
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol40/40-5/182.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006. Freshwater mussels of the Upper Mississippi River
system, current threats. Accessed April 1, 2010 at:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/mussel/current_threats.html
Watters, G.T. 1992. Distribution of the Unionidae in south central Ohio. Malacology Data Net,
3(1-4): 56-90.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1071

 Scientific Name:
Solidago arenicola
Common Name:
Southern Racemose Goldenrod
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This flower is confirmed from a limited number of sites in Alabama and Tennessee. It is found
along the Locust Fork River in Blount County, Alabama, and along Daddy's Creek, the Obed River,
Clear Creek, the upper Emory River, and the Big South Fork River and its primary tributaries in
Tennessee (D. Estes, pers. comm. as cited in NatureServe 2008). A closely related taxon in
Kentucky has yet to be confirmed as S. arenicola, but if confirmed it would expand the species'
range to include the Big South Fork, Rockcastle, and Cumberland Rivers in Kentucky (D. White
pers. comm. as cited in NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
In Alabama this plant occurs within a floodplain in shady, acidic woods in deep, sandy, alluvial
soil. Its habitat is often inundated in winter and early spring, and is drier in summer and fall
(Keener and Kral 2003). Tennessee occurrences are found on cobble bars in rivers. Possible
Kentucky populations are found on boulder bars (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This plant flowers from August-October (FNA 2006).
Populations:
Six occurrences of this flower are currently known, one in Alabama and five in Tennessee; total
population size is not known (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Population trend is not reported for this rare species, but known populations appear to be healthy
(NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks S. arenicola as critically imperiled in both Alabama and Tennessee.
Habitat destruction:
Dredging, channelization, impoundments, and other human activities that result in altered
hydrology may threaten this species' floodplain habitat (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect Solidago arenicola or its habitat.
Other factors:
Invasion of cobble or boulder bar habitat by Mimosa spp. or other changes in succession may be a
threat to the goldenrod (D. White, pers. comm as cited in NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1072

 References:
Estes, Dwayne. Personal communication. Department of Biology, Austin Peay State University,
Clarksville, TN.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 2006. Flora of North America North of Mexico.
Vol. 20. Magnoliophyta: Asteridae, part 7: Asteraceae, part 2. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
xxii + 666 pp.
Keener, B. R., and R. Kral. 2003. A new species of Solidago (Asteraceae) from north central
Alabama. Sida 20: 1589-1593.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed
January 19, 2010.
Schotz, A. Community Ecologist/Botanist, Alabama Natural Heritage Program. Personal
Communication.
White, Deborah. Botanist, Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, Ky.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1073

 Scientific Name:
Solidago plumosa
Common Name:
Yadkin River Goldenrod
G Rank:
G1
Range:
First discovered in 1894, S. plumosa was thought to be extinct for nearly 100 years until it was
rediscovered in 1994. It is currently known from only two sites within the Yadkin River Gorge in
North Carolina (NatureServe 2008). This species is also known as the plumed goldenrod.
Habitat:
This plant is found in rock crevices adjacent to rivers or streams (CPC 2004). It persists in areas
that experience periodic scouring, and is not tolerant of longer periods of inundation (USFWS
2004).
Populations:
Only two occurrences of this species are known. One is composed of 62 juvenile and 3119 adult
rosettes; the second contained only 9 rosettes in the most recent surveys (Bates 2004, 1998).
Population Trends:
This species has experienced major decline over the long-term; the construction of two dams on
the Yadkin River were thought to have extirpated the species entirely until it was rediscovered in
the early 1990s. Observational trends since its rediscovery also suggest that populations are
declining (Bates 2004).
Status:
Known from just two populations of declining size and viability, this species merits protection
against further losses and likely extinction. NatureServe (2008) ranks the Yadkin River goldenrod
as critically imperiled. It is listed as endangered in North Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
Alteration to local flood regime is likely the greatest threat to this species; the construction of
two hydroelectric dams destroyed historical populations. Future changes to these dams or the
construction of other impoundments on the Yadkin River could extirpate this species.
Recreational use of habitat may result in trampling of individual S. plumosa (Southern
Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Neither of the two sites where this species occurs is adequately protected, although USFWS is
working with the relevant power companies to ensure that further habitat destruction does not
occur. Though it is listed as a federal species of special concern and state-listed as endangered in
North Carolina, these designations confer no substantive regulatory protections to the Yadkin
River goldenrod; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this highly imperiled
species.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1074

 References:
Bates, M. 1998. Field Survey Report for Solidago plumosa at Morrow Mountain State Park. NC
Plant Conservation Program. NCDA&CS, MSC 1060, Raleigh, NC 27699-1060.
Bates, M. 2004. Solidago plumosa Monitoring at Narrows (Badin) Dam. Unpublished data. NC
Plant Conservation Program. NCDA&CS, 1060 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1060.
Center for Plant Conservation. 2004. Plant Conservation Vol. 17, 12pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 13, 2010)
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Species assessment and listing priority
assignment form. Solidago plumosa. 11 pp.
Weakley, Alan S. Former Botanist, North Carolina Heritage Program, now North Carolina
Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N.C.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1075

 Scientific Name:
Somatochlora calverti
Common Name:
Calvert's Emerald
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
Somatochlora calverti has been found in the Florida Panhandle and adjacent Alabama, and there is
a population in Allendale County, South Carolina that is probably disjunct (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Larval and breeding habitat for this species is unknown, but is probably boggy forest seepages
(NatureServe 2008). Adults feed over roads or among tree canopies. Mating pairs hang from tree
twigs in the feeding areas.
Populations:
Eleven localities are known, but the species may occur in many small, discrete habitats.
Population data are not available.
Population Trends:
In the short term, this species is considered stable, but over time small habitats will be likely
destroyed, and adults may become more exposed to pesticides and loss of forest foraging habitat.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Alabama (S1S3), vulnerable in
Florida, and in South Carolina it is not ranked. It is ranked as near threatened by the IUCN.
Paulson (2007) reports that "S. calverti is relatively rare within its restricted range (it has an
estimated Extent of Occurrence of less than 3,000 km². The species is rarely reported and its
breeding habitat has not yet been determined. It remains poorly known but is sufficiently
uncommon to be of some concern."
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is threatened by development, clear-cutting, and
pesticide use.
Paulson (2007) states: "S. calverti is experiencing logging to the woodland where adults are seen
and the threat of drought to small-sized breeding habitats is likely to occur in the future."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to NatureServe (2008), S. calverti occurs in Torreya State Park, Blackwater River State
Forest, Apalachicola National Forest in Florida and Conecuh National Forest, Alabama. It is
considered a Sensitive Species by the U.S. Forest Service (2007) but any protection afforded the
species under this designation is discretionary. Logging is a primary threat to this species, and
occurrences on state and national forests offer no actual protection from logging or clearcutting.
This species may occur in the Nature Conservancy's Apalachicola Bluffs Preserve, but has not
been confirmed.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1076

 References:
Bick, G.H. 1983. Odonata at risk in conterminous United States and Canada. Odonatologica 12
(3):209-226.
Needham, James G., and Minter J. Westfall, Jr. 1954. A Manual of the Dragonflies of North
America (Anisoptera). University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 615 p.
Paulson, D. R. 2007. Somatochlora calverti. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2009.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 06 March 2010.
Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum
of Natural History University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper Number 56:86 pp.
U.S. Forest Service. 2007. Environmental Assessment for Apalachicola National Forest
Motorized Route Designation. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/florida/apalachicola/resources/documents/access/apalachicola_access_e
a_sep2007.pdf. Last accessed March 6, 2010.
Williamson, E.B., and L.K. Gloyd. 1933. A new Somatochlora from Florida (OdonataCordulinae). Occ. Papers Mus. Zoology Univ. Michigan. 262. pp. 1-7.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1077

 Scientific Name:
Somatochlora margarita
Common Name:
Texas Emerald
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
This dragonfly is found from East Texas to central Louisiana (NatureServe 2008). There are
natural heritage records for the following Texas counties: Anderson, Houston, Sabine, San
Augustine, San Jacinto, and Trinity.
Habitat:
NatureServe (2008) reports that larval habitat remains unknown, but is probably seepages and
boggy forest trickles in loblolly and longleaf pine forests. This dragonfly probably breeds in
small, discrete sites.
Populations:
S. margarita is known from ten sites in east Texas and two in Louisiana (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports a short term decline of up to 30 percent for the Texas Emerald, based
on probable breeding seeps not being used when forest is clearcut.
Status:
This species is ranked as imperiled in Texas and not rated in Louisiana. It was a Federal C-2
Candidate Species until that list was abolished. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
This dragonfly is threatened by logging and agriculture (NatureServe 2008). It does not breed in
areas that have been clearcut. The Boswell Timber Sale on the Sam Houston National Forest
occurred in the habitat of the Texas Emerald, and impacted its habitat (USFS 2003).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to NatureServe (2008), the Texas Emerald receives some protection because it occurs
on National Forest lands. Occurring on National Forests, however, does not protect this species'
habitat from logging. No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Bick, G.H. 1983. Odonata at risk in conterminous United States and Canada. Odonatologica 12
(3):209-226.
Donnelly, T.W. 1962. SOMATOCHLORA MARGARITA, a new species of dragonfly from
eastern Texas. Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington 64:235-240.
Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum
of Natural History University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper Number 56:86 pp.
Price, A.H. and S. Chambers. 1989. Status survey for the big thicket emerald dragonfly
(SOMATOCHLORA MARGARITA). Draft Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 26 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1078

 United States Forest Service. 2003. Biological Evaluation of Boswell Creek Watershed Healthy
Forests Initiative Project. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/texas/healthy_for_ini/boswell_creek_spec_reports/boswell_rtf/hfi_bos
well_creek_be.rtf. Last accessed March 18, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1079

 Scientific Name:
Somatochlora ozarkensis
Common Name:
Ozark Emerald
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The Ozark Emerald is found in the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas, adjacent Oklahoma
and Missouri, and eastern Kansas (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This dragonfly is found in small forested streams (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
This dragonfly is known from eight sites in Arkansas, two in Oklahoma, two in Kansas, and one in
Missouri (NatureServe 2008). It is abundant in appropriate habitat.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is stable in the short term, but will face an eventual
decline from deforestation, development of vacation homes, and pollution.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Arkansas and Kansas, imperiled in
Missouri, and not rated in Oklahoma. In Kansas, it is a Nongame Species in Need of Conservation
(Kansas Admin. Regs. § 115-15-2 2010). It is ranked as near threatened by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
Deforestation, development, and pollution threaten the Ozark Emerald (NatureServe 2008).
The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (2005) reports that "[s]tream channelization and
clearing of riparian woodlands along streams are major threats to the Ozark Emerald Dragonfly."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
S. ozarkensis can be found in Ozark and Ouachita National Forests, the Lake Sylvia Recreation
Area in Arkansas, and in Woodson County State Lake Area in Kansas (NatureServe 2008).
Occurrence on public lands does not necessarily protect this dragonfly from the threats of logging
and pesticides, however.
References:
Bird, R.D. 1933. SOMATOCHLORA OZARKENSIS, a new species from Oklahoma. Occ. Pap.
Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 261:1-7.
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. 2005. Ozark Emerald Dragonfly webpage.
http://edit.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/layout/set/print/Other-Services/Threatened-and-EndangeredSpecies/Species-in-Need-of-Conservation-SINC/Species-Information/Ozark-EmeraldDragonfly-Somatochlora-ozarkensis. Last Accessed March 17, 2010.
Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum
of Natural History University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper Number 56:86 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1080

 Scientific Name:
Somatogyrus alcoviensis
Common Name:
Reverse Pebblesnail
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
EX - Extinct

Range:
This species is known from only two sites in the upper Ocmulgee System in Georgia (Georgia
Dept. of Natural Resources 2009). The range of the Reverse Pebblesnail is less than 100 square
km in the Alcovy and Yellow Rivers in Newton County (Burch 1989, Watson 1999, 2000).
Habitat:
This snail is restricted to shoals in two small to medium sized rivers where it uses bedrock,
cobble, or boulder substrate. It does not occur on silt substrates. It can also be found on
vegetation such as mats of riverweed in rapidly flowing water (Watson 2000, NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There are two extant populations of this snail. A 1995 survey of 21 sites detected this species
only at the Alcovy River at Factory Shoals and at Cedar Shoals in the Yellow River (Watson
2000). Total population size is unknown.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is relatively stable, but it was detected at only 2 of
21 sites in a 1995 survey (Watson 2000).
Status:
The IUCN classifies this snail as extinct, but this needs to be revised. NatureServe (2008) ranks it
as critically imperiled (G1S1).
Habitat destruction:
Watson (2000) reports that growth and development in the Atlanta area potentially threaten this
snail. Metropolitan areas in the southeast are among the fastest growing in the nation. The human
population of Atlanta, GA expanded by 24 percent from 2000-2007 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).
The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources (2009) reports that aquatic species in the Piedmont are
increasingly threatened by the rapid pace of residential and commercial development. Expansion
of the Atlanta area has resulted in the development of subdivisions, roads, utility corridors, and
retail centers (GDNR 2009). Indiscriminant use of herbicides and excessive ground disturbance
along roads and in utility corridors is impacting aquatic habitats. Direct habitat loss and increased
non-point source pollution threaten this snail. Point source discharges into streams in the
Piedmont region include wastewater industrial facilities and municipal treatment facilities making
water quality degradation a threat to this snail. There has also been extensive conversion of forest
and woodland habitats to agriculture, contributing heavy sediment loads to waterways (GDNR
2009). Unmanaged recreational use, particulary by ATVs, is also a threat to this snail, as shoals
and other aquatic habitats are being heavily impacted by off-road traffic and litter in this region
(GDNR 2009).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1081

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect this species.
References:
Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications: Hamburg,
Michigan. 365 pp.
Dillon, R.T., Jr., W.K. Reeves, and T.W. Stewart. 2006 [2007]. The freshwater gastropods of
Georgia. Created 26 August 2003. Last updated September 2007. Available online:
http://www.cofc.edu/~fwgna/FWGGA/index.html.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Statistical Abstracts of the United States. http://www.census.gov Last
accessed August 25, 2009.
Watson, C.N. 1999. Results of a survey for selected species of Hydrobiidae in Georgia and
Florida [abstract]. Page 27 in Program Guide and Abstracts. The First Symposium of the
Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society, Chattanooga, Tennessee, March 17-19, 1999.
Watson, C.N., Jr. 2000. Results of a survey for selected species of Hydrobiidae (Gastropoda) in
Georgia and Florida. Pages 233-244 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J.
Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings.
Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1082

 Scientific Name:
Sporobolus teretifolius
Common Name:
Wire-leaved Dropseed
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Wireleaf dropseed is endemic to the Coastal Plain area of southeastern North Carolina,
northeastern South Carolina, southern Georgia, and southeastern Alabama. Natural heritage
records show this species has been recently confirmed in Houston County, Alabama, Berrien,
Bulloch, Candler, Coffee, Colquitt, Crisp, Dodge, Emanuel, Jeff David, Jenkins, Screven, Telfair,
Toombs, Treutlen, Turner, and Worth Counties, Georgia, in Brunswick and Columbus Counties,
North Carolina, and in Georgetown and Horry Counties, South Carolina. It is reportedly
extirpated from several counties where it was historically present (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Found in permanently moist or wet savannas, this species' preferred habitat is usually underlain by
clay soils. It is typically associated with a canopy complex of pond pine (Pinus serotina), longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris) and sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), though it may also occur in
the ecotones between pine/oak/wiregrass and red maple/sweetgum/swamp tupelo communities
(Weakley and Peterson 1998). In wetter habitat, S. teretifolius may be the dominant grass, or may
be co-dominant with the Carolina dropseed (Sporobolus pinetorum), toothache grass (Ctenium
aromaticum) and cutover muhly (Muhlenbergia expansa). It is occasionally found in seepage
slopes or pitcherplant bogs (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This species is perennial.
Populations:
There are approximately 46 currently known occurrences of this species, and 9 more may be
extant but have not been confirmed for 30 years. Known populations are distributed as follows:
Georgia: 26, South Carolina: 10, North Carolina: 9, and Alabama: 1 (NatureServe 2008).
Population size varies widely across this species' range; at a few sites, S. teretifolius is dominant
or co-dominant, while elsewhere it is sparsely distributed or sporadic. Abundance seems to be
largely contingent on recent management actions (whether a site has been burned, mowed,
cleared, or other).
Population Trends:
The total number of occurrences seems to be in decline based on county-level extirpations
(NatureServe 2008).
Status:
Several historical occurrences of this species appear to have been extirpated. NatureServe (2008)
ranks the wireleaf dropseed as critically imperiled in Alabama and South Carolina and imperiled in
North Carolina and Georgia. It is state listed as endangered in North Carolina.
Habitat destruction:
The primary threat to this species is habitat destruction. The low-lying savannas preferred by S.
teretifolius are frequently converted to pine plantations or agricultural fields, used as pasture, sited for
development, or simply degraded by fire suppression and hydrological changes. Fire suppression is
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1083

 particularly damaging because fire stimulates flowering in S. teretifolius; if fires do not occur at 3-5 year
intervals, either reproductive failure or encroachment by woody vegetation may exclude this species
(McIver 1981). Dredging, damming, filling, or other alterations to the wetland hydrology may be
harmful to to S. teretifolius if they inundate or dessicate its habitat. This species may establish in
anthropogenic habitat (e.g., along roadside verges); if mowing occurs out of sync with the dropseed's
reproductive cycle and/or period of dormancy (December-March), populations may be destroyed
(Weakley, A.S. pers. comm. as cited in NatureServe 2008). Recreation also threatens this species.
Individual plants may be crushed by visitors recreating in their habitat (McIver 1981). Plants can also be
crushed by heavy equipment used in logging, military activities, or fire suppression (McIver 1981).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
A few occurrences of this species are found on land owned by the Nature Conservancy in North
Carolina, but most other populations occur on private lands where no protections are offered.
Sustaining this species requires active management as it is clearly fire-adapted and highly sensitive
to hydrological changes within its habitat (e.g., Cooper et al. 1977). Though it is listed as
threatened in North Carolina, this designation offers S. teretifolius no substantial regulatory
protections; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the wireleaf dropseed.
References:
Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson, and J.B. Funderburg (eds.). 1977. Endangered and threatened plants
and animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North
Carolina. 444 pp.
McIver, H. 1981. "Green Swamp Nature Preserve, Brunswick Company, North Carolina."
Document prepared for North Carolina Field Office of The Nature Conservancy. February 1981.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 13, 2010)
Sorrie, B.A. 1995. Status survey for Sporobolus teretifolius. Prepared for the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC.
Weakley, A. S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding
areas. Working Draft of 7 April 2008. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North
Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Online. Available:
http://herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm (Accessed 2008).
Weakley, A.S. and P.M. Peterson. 1998. Taxonomy of the Sporobolus floridanus complex
(Poaceae: Sporobolinae). Sida 18(1): 247-270.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1084

 Scientific Name:
Stellaria fontinalis
Common Name:
Water Stitchwort
G Rank:
G3
Range:
This regional endemic is restricted to the Interior Low Plateaus Province of central Tennessee to
north-central Kentucky. It occurs along the Kentucky River and tributaries (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This flowering plant occurs in open to partially-shaded wet areas with thin limestone soil. It is
found where natural disturbances reduce competition from woody and weedy plants. It is
associated with wetland plants, mosses, and algae, and occurs on stream banks, washouts, mosscovered cliffs overlooking streams, and calcareous seeps in glade woods.
Populations:
As of 1997, there were two extant populations in Kentucky, and 53 in Tennessee, but this number might
be out of date (NatureServe 2008). This plant occurs in dense concentrations in very local areas.
Population Trends:
As this species has not been assessed since 1997, new populations may have been detected, and
known populations have also likely been lost due to rampant development in its habitat (eg.
Tennessee Valley Authority 2008, Elkhorn Intercounty Consortium and Conservation Districts
1995).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled in Kentucky and vulnerable in Tennessee, but
this hasn't been updated since 1997 and there are only two known populations in Kentucky. It is
listed as threatened by the states of Kentucky and Tennessee.
Habitat destruction:
Populations of this plant are particularly susceptible to being extirpated by habitat loss because it
is distributed in dense concentrations in very localized areas. Industrial, residential, and
commercial development is the greatest threat to this species. There is a known population of this
plant which will be extirpated by a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power supply improvement
project substation, the Record of Decision for which was issued on June 5, 2008. In Tennessee, a
population of this plant occurs within the area of a proposed vehicle manufacturing plant (U.S.
DOE 2009). Another population in Tennessee occurs in the project area of a proposed
transmission line (Tennessee Valley Authority 2007). In Tennessee, this plant also occurs within
the project area of proposed natural gas transmission facilities (Midwestern Gas Transmission
Company 2005). In Kentucky, one of only two known extant populations of this species is
threatened by the proposed Smith coal-fired power plant in Clark County (Gilpin Group 2007,
U.S. DOE 2002). Concerning development in a watershed where this species occurs in Kentucky,
the Elkhorn Intercounty Consortium and Conservation District states, "The development activity
in the watershed is practically increasing daily. This area is heavily used for industrial
development and the expansion of existing factories." Impoundment also threatens this species,
one population of which is threatened by a proposed TVA impoundment (NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1085

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which currently protect this species. NatureServe
(2008) reports that 1-3 occurrences are appropriately protected and managed. One population
occurs in a State Natural Area in Tennessee. One of the two Kentucky occurrences is on a State
Nature Preserve. This plant is listed as threatened by the states of Kentucky and Tennessee, but this
designation does not confer regulatory protection, as numerous projects have been approved
which will extirpate known populations of this plant.
Other factors:
Water stitchwort requires continual availability of water to survive and reproduce. It is thus
threatened by drought, climate change, wetland draining and filling, and surface and groundwater
withdrawal and diversion.
References:
Gilpin Group Environmental Consulting and Planning. 2007. Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Smith Station CT Units 9 and 10 and the Smith-West Garrard Electric Transmission
Project. June 2007.
Midwestern Gas Transmission Company. 2005. Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment.
Eastern Extenstion Project. Docket No. CP05-372-000. Accessed Feb. 9, 2010 at:
http://www.mgt.oneokpartners.com/pdf/MGTVolumeVPublicInformation.pdf
Tennessee Valley Authority. 2007. Final Environmental Assessment Murfreesboro-East Franklin
and Pinhook Radnor 161-KV Transmission Lines. Accessed Feb. 9, 2010 at:
http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/murfreesboro_tl/ea.pdf
Tennessee Valley Authority. 2008. Rutherford-Williamson-Davidson Power Supply
Improvement Project. Rutherford 500-kV Substation. Accessed Feb. 9, 2010 at:
http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/rutherford/RWD_FEIS_Ch4.pdf
U.S. Dept. of Energy. 2002. Kentucky Pioneer Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
Demonstration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Accessed Feb. 9, 2010 at:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/cctdp/bibliography/demonstration/pdfs/cl
nen/KyPioneerEIS.pdf
U.S. Dept. of Energy. Final Environmental Assessment for Department of Energy loan to Nissan
North America, Inc. for advanced technology electric vehicle manufacturing project in Smyrna,
Tennessee. DOE/EA-1678. Washington, DC. Accessed Feb. 9, 2010 at:
http://www.gc.energy.gov/NEPA/documents/EA-1678.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1086

 Scientific Name:
Stygobromus cooperi
Common Name:
Cooper's Cave Amphipod
G Rank:
G1

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of Cooper's Cave amphipod is less than 100-250 square km (less than about 40 to 100
square miles). It is known only from the type locality in Berkeley Co., West Virginia
(NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
S. cooperi s found in mud-bottomed seep-fed cave pools, according to NatureServe (2008).
Populations:
S. cooperi is known only from one site in West Virginia. Only two specimens of this species have
ever been collected, and it has not been reported in the last 20 years.
Status:
Stygobromus cooperis is critically imperiled (NatureServe 2008). It was a Federal C-2 Candidate
Species until that list was abolished. In 1985, the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined that
this species warranted listing under the Endangered Species Act, but was precluded by efforts to
list other species (USFWS 1985). It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species faces the possible threat of groundwater pollution or
other disturbances. Recreation threatens this species. When not gated, Silers Cave is subject to
significant accumulations of garbage and other pollution, and has been cleaned up by volunteers
several times (National Speleological Society 2002, 2004).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1983. How to Know the Freshwater Crustacea. Wm. C. Brown Co.
Publishers. Dubuque, Iowa. 277 pp.
Holsinger, J.R. 1978. SYSTEMATICS OF THE SUBTERRANEAN AMPHI- POD GENUS
STYGOBROMUS (CRANGONYCTIDAE), PART II: SPECIES OF THE EASTERN UNITED
STATES. SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO Z00- LOGY, 266:1-144.
Holsinger, J.R. 1978. Systematics of the subterranean amphipod genus Stygobromus
(Crangonyctidae). Part II: Species of the Eastern United States. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology 266:1-144.
Holsinger, John R. 1976. The Freshwater Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North
America. Biological Methods Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 89 p.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1087

 National Speleological Society. 2004. Sligo Grotto History. Available online at
http://www.caves.org/grotto/sligo/history.htm. Last accessed December 14, 2009.
National Speleological Society. Sept. 2002.Update!!! Gate Repaired. Available online at
http://www.caves.org/grotto/sligo/newgate2.htm. Last accessed December 14, 2009.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. May 10, 1985. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Findings on Pending Petitions and Description of Progress on Listing Actions. 50 Federal
Register 19761.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1088

 Scientific Name:
Stygobromus indentatus
Common Name:
Tidewater Amphipod
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
S. araeus is a blind, cavernicolous amphipod whose distribution is restricted to a small portion of
the southeastern United States’ Coastal Plain. Populations are known in North Carolina and
Virginia, and current range is thought to extend from New Kent and Matthews Counties in Virginia
southward to Gates County, North Carolina (Holsinger 1978, Terwilliger 1991).
Habitat:
S. araeus is found in shallow groundwater habitat in the interstitial pores of unconsolidated
sediments; also found in wells, seeps, and drains (Holsinger 1969, 1978, Terwilliger 1991).
Ecology:
Though individuals are motile, the species is non-migratory and does not disperse great distances.
Reproduction occurs in spring months (Holsinger 1972). Both adults and juveniles are
detrivores, scavenging food from their subterranean aquatic environment.
Populations:
Overall abundance is unknown, but there are reportedly 7 known occurrences in Virginia and only
1 in North Carolina (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
No reports on population trends are readily available, but the extent of habitat destruction
suggests that decline is likely.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this amphipod is critically imperiled overall (N1), vulnerable in
Virginia, and unranked in North Carolina. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
The limited range within which this species occurs (primarily the Tidewater region of Virginia) is
undergoing rapid urbanization, which both outrightly destroys habitat and contributes to the
decline of remaining habitat by increasing local water demands and lowering the regional water
table (NatureServe 2008). This species is highly sensitive to habitat loss and degradation because
it is so specialized and cannot readily disperse to new habitat patches.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this tidewater amphipod.
Other factors:
Pollution of groundwater habitat in urbanized and periurban areas threatens this species
(NatureServe 2008).
References:
Holsinger, J.R. 1969. The Systematics of the North American Subterranean Amphipod genus
Apocrangonyx (Gammaridae) with Remarks on Ecology and Zoogeography. American Midland
Naturalist 81:1-28.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1089

 Holsinger, J.R. 1972. The Freshwater Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae), of North America.
GPO. IDENT. MANUAL #5 PP. 1-89.
Holsinger, J.R. 1978. Systematics of the subterranean amphipod genus Stygobromus
(Crangonyctidae). Part II: Species of the Eastern United States. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology 266:1-144.
Holsinger, J.R. 1978. Systematics of the subterranean amphipod genus Stygobromus
(Crangonyctidae). Part II: Species of the eastern United States. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology, 266: 1-144.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
November 9, 2009)
Terwilliger, Karen. 1991. Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium held at
Va. Tech. April 1989. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1090

 Scientific Name:
Stygobromus morrisoni
Common Name:
Morrison's Cave Amphipod
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The range of Morrison's cave amphipod is very disjunct, and extends from Bath Co., Virginia,
north-northeast to Hardy Co., West Virginia, and covers a linear distance of approximately 161
km (100 mi). Sites are in two different river drainages, the upper James river and the upper
Potomac River. Additional populations of this species may eventually be discovered in the large
disjunctions between the presently known localities (Holsinger 1978).
Habitat:
Stygobromus morrisoni is found in subterranean gravel-bottomed streams to mud-bottomed lakes
(NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
In the type locality, S. morrisoni occurs syntopically with S. mundus (Holsinger 1976). In Kenny
Simmons Cave (West Virginia), a specimen was collected along with two specimens of S.
Emarginatus. In Dyers Cave (WV), a single specimen was collected from a pool which also
contained several specimens of S. Allegheniensis (Holsinger 1978).
Populations:
This species is only known from 4 occurrences, 2 sites in WV and 2 in VA, only one of which has
been seen within the last 25 years (NatureServe 2010).
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown, but in the past 25 years this species has only been detected at one of four
known locations.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Virginia and West Virginia. It was
a Federal C2 Candidate species until that list was abolished. It is ranked as vulnerable by the
IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) warns that potential threats include groundwater pollution, depletion of
groundwater by human use, and disturbance or destruction by spelunkers.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms protect this species.
References:
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1983. How to Know the Freshwater Crustacea. Wm. C. Brown Co.
Publishers. Dubuque, Iowa. 277 pp.
Holsinger, J.R. 1978. Systematics of the subterranean amphipod genus Stygobromus
(Crangonyctidae). Part II: Species of the Eastern United States. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology 266:1-144.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1091

 Holsinger, John R. 1976. The Freshwater Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North
America. Biological Methods Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 89 p.
Linzey, Donald W., ed. 1979. Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of Virginia.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blackburg, Virginia. 665 p.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1092

 Scientific Name:
Stygobromus parvus
Common Name:
Minute Cave Amphipod
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
The Minute cave amphipod is found in four caves in Randolph, Tucker and Pochahontas Counties,
West Virginia in two or three drainages (Lewis 2001).
Habitat:
S. parvus occurs in mud-bottomed, drip, and seep pools in caves, as reported by NatureServe
(2008). It is apparently tolerant of substrate but prefers standing water.
Ecology:
This species has been found to occur sympatrically with both S. Emarginatus and S. nanus.
(Holsinger 1978).
Populations:
This species is known from 4 sites (Lewis 2001). It is not abundant at any site.
Population Trends:
Trend is unknown.
Status:
The status of Stygobromus parvus in West Virginia is critically imperiled. It was also a Federal C2
Candidate Species until that list was abolished. It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN.
Habitat destruction:
Lewis (2001) reports that S. parvus may be threatened by pollution of its cave pools due to
sewage, agricultural chemicals, or chemical spills; road construction, logging, farming, and trail
building near cave habitats; impoundments that backflood the caves; water contamination by
smoke intrusion; quarrying and blasting; drilling for water, oil, or gas exploration; the introduction
of exotic species; and vandalism caused by cave explorers.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
All four caves where this species is known to occur are in the Monongahela National Forest, where
the species is considered a Sensitive Species by the Regional Forester, but this designation
confers no regulatory protection for the species habitat, and the amphipod could be threatened by
authorized activities on the forest including logging and oil and gas exploration.
References:
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr. 1983. How to Know the Freshwater Crustacea. Wm. C. Brown Co.
Publishers. Dubuque, Iowa. 277 pp.
Holsinger, J.R. 1978. SYSTEMATICS OF THE SUBTERRANEAN AMPHI- POD GENUS
STYGOBROMUS (CRANGONYCTIDAE), PART II: SPECIES OF THE EASTERN UNITED
STATES. SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO Z00- LOGY, 266:1-144.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1093

 Holsinger, J.R. 1978. Systematics of the subterranean amphipod genus Stygobromus
(Crangonyctidae). Part II: Species of the Eastern United States. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology 266:1-144.
Holsinger, John R. 1976. The Freshwater Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North
America. Biological Methods Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 89 p.
Lewis, J.J. 2001. Conservation Assessment for Minute Cave Amphipod (Stygobromus parvus).
Prepared for U.S. Forest Service. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/caoverview/docs/invertebrate_Stygobromus_parvus-minutecaveamphipod.pdf. Last accessed
January 13, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1094

 Scientific Name:
Stylurus potulentus
Common Name:
Yellow-sided Clubtail
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
VU - Vulnerable

Range:
This dragonfly is found in the Florida panhandle and coastal Mississippi (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
S. potulentus occupies pristine sand-bottomed forest streams and rivers. Adults forage low along
shady forest edges (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is known from seven streams and one river in
southern Mississippi and the Florida Panhandle. It is known from perhaps 200 miles of stream. It
is estimated that there are probably hundreds to thousands of individuals per stream.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that S. potulentus is likely severely to rapidly declining (decline of
30 percent to more than 70 percent) in the short term. The actual trend is unknown and this
estimate is based on the extreme sensitivity of this species to any alteration of water quality.
Status:
Stylurus potulentus is subject to a limited range, rarity, and susceptibility to alterations in stream
flow and water quality (NatureServe 2008). It is ranked as vulnerable by the IUCN and as
imperiled by NatureServe (2008).
Habitat destruction:
This species is extremely sensitive to water quality degradation is threatened by development,
pollution, clearcutting, and pesticides (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
According to NatureServe (2008), ths species occurs in a state forest in Florida, but this does not
necessarily offer any protection from clogging or pesticides. No existing regulatory mechanisms
protect this species.
References:
Bick, G.H. 1983. Odonata at risk in conterminous United States and Canada. Odonatologica 12
(3):209-226.
Needham, James G., and Minter J. Westfall, Jr. 1954. A Manual of the Dragonflies of North
America (Anisoptera). University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 615 p.
Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum
of Natural History University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper Number 56:86 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1095

 Scientific Name:
Symphyotrichum puniceum var. scabricaule
Common Name:
Rough-stemmed Aster
G Rank:
T2
Range:
The rough-stemmed aster is endemic to a small range in east-central Texas, and is possibly also
found in Mississippi and Louisiana but is not confirmed in these states. Natural heritage records
show this species was present, as of 2009, in Anderson, Franklin, Freestone, Henderson, Hopkins,
Smith, Van Zandt, and Wood Counties (TPWD 2009), though NatureServe (2008) reports it only
in Anderson, Smith, Van Zandt, and Wood Counties.
Habitat:
The aster is found in seepage bog or pond habitat (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This perennial flower may reproduce clonally via rhizomes (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
The rough-stemmed aster is known from eight small populations (size unreported) (NatureServe
2008).
Population Trends:
Trend information has not been reported for this rare species.
Status:
Known from just eight small populations in a small range in Texas, this flower is restricted to
seepage bogs which are threatened by various human activities. NatureServe (2008) ranks the
rough-stem aster as imperiled (T2).
.
Habitat destruction:
Conversion of wetland/seep habitat to pasture is a major threat to the rough-stemmed aster and
has reduced available suitable habitat for this species substantially (USFWS 1997).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the rough-stem aster or its habitat.
References:
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
January 19, 2010).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1096

 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2009. Rough-stem aster. Accessed online January 19,
2010
<<http://gis.tpwd.state.tx.us/TpwEndangeredSpecies/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=0&tabid=9
&type=map&cname=Roughstem%20aster&desc=relatively%20open%20sites%20in%20saturated%20soils%20associated
%20with%20seepage%20areas,%20bogs,%20marshes,%20ponds,%20drainages,%20and%20de
graded%20wetland%20remnants%20on%20the%20Queen%20City,%20Carrizo,%20and%20Sp
arta%20sand%20formations;%20flowering%20late%20Septemberearly%20November&parm=PDAST0T2L4&sname=Symphyotrichum%20puniceum%20var%20
scabricaule&usesa=&sprot=>>
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Category and Listing Priority Form.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1097

 Scientific Name:
Tallaperla lobata
Common Name:
Lobed Roachfly
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This stonefly is known only from Washington and Russel counties, Virginia (NatureServe 2008).
There are natural heritage records for the North Folk Holston and Upper Clinch watersheds.
Habitat:
Tallaperla lobata is restricted to small pristine headwater streams in forested areas (NatureServe
2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that T. lobata is known from fewer than ten ocurrences in Washington
Co., Virginia.
Population Trends:
Trend has not been quantified for this species.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled (S1S2). This stonefly is restricted
to pristine headwater streams and is threatened by logging and recreation within its very limited
habitat.
Habitat destruction:
This species requires pristine forested headwater habitat and is threatened primarily by logging
and recreation (NatureServe 2008).
Tallaperla lobata was collected from Little Moccasin Creek near Low Gap, but most of the
original forest has been cleared for upland pasture (Kondratieff and Kirchner 1991).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The Lobed roachfly occurs primarily on the Jefferson National Forest (NatureServe 2008).
Despite its occurrence on public land, this species is threatened by logging and recreation. The
Forest Service maintains a Sensitive Species list, but protections offered to sensitive species are
discretionary. No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.
References:
Kondratieff, B. C. and R. F. Kirchner. 1991. Stoneflies. Pp. 214-225. In: Virginia's Endangered
Species. K. Terwilliger (ed.). McDonald & Woodward Publ. Co., Blacksburg, VA.
Stark, B. P. 1983. The Tallaperla maria Complex of Eastern North America (Plecoptera:
Peltoperlidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, Vol. 56, No. 3 pp. 398-410.
Stark, B.P. 1996. Last updated 16 February 2001. North American Stonefly List. Online.
Available: http://www.mc.edu/campus/users/stark/Sfly0102.htm. Last accessed March 16, 2010.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1098

 Scientific Name:
Thalictrum debile
Common Name:
Southern Meadowrue
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Southern meadowrue is known from a few scattered occurrences in Mississippi, Alabama, and
Georgia. Natural heritage records show that the southern meadowrue has been recently
confirmed in Pickens, Sumter, and Wilcox Counties, Alabama (extirpated from Colbert, Greene,
Lawrence, and Madison Counties), in Gordon County, Georgia (extirpated from Floyd County),
and in Lowndes, Oktibbeha, and Wayne Counties, Missisissippi (extirpated from Noxubee
County) (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant is found in rich, rocky, limestone floodplain forest, often close to streams (Patrick et
al. 1995, Chafin 2007).
Ecology:
This perennial plant blooms March-April, and fruits March-May (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
Southern meadowrue is known from approximately 10 extant occurrences: total population size is
not reported (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) determined that T. debile is significantly declining, largely due to habitat
destruction.
Status:
This plant is known from very few widely scattered occurrences, threatened by invasive exotics
and habitat destruction, and several populations have been recently extirpated. NatureServe
(2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Georgia and Mississippi and imperiled in
Alabama. It is state listed as threatened in Georgia.
Habitat destruction:
Activities associated with road construction have destroyed one population of southern
meadowrue and threaten others (Chafin 2007). Additionally, any activities that threaten the
integrity of local hydrological processes may harm this sensitive plant species.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is listed as threatened in Georgia, this designation affords the southern meadowrue no
substantial regulatory protections; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this
species.
Other factors:
Invasive exotics like Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) outcompete and destroy
populations of T. debile and represent an increasing threat across this species' range (Patrick et al.
1995).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1099

 References:
Chafin, L.G. 2007. Field guide to the rare plants of Georgia. State Botanical Garden of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia.
Jones, S.B., Jr., and N.C. Coile. 1988. The distribution of the vascular flora of Georgia. Dept.
Botany, Univ. Georgia, Athens. 230 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed
January 13, 2010.
Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia: an information
manual on plants designated by the State of Georgia as endangered, threatened, rare, or unusual.
Georgia Dept. Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Natural Heritage
Program, Social Circle, Georgia. 218 pp + appendices.
Weakley, A. S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. Working
draft of 11 January 2007. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North Carolina
Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Online. Available:
http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm (accessed 2007).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1100

 Scientific Name:
Thamnophis sauritus pop. 1
Common Name:
Eastern Ribbonsnake - Lower Florida Keys
G Rank:
T1
Range:
The Lower Florida Keys population of the Eastern Ribbonsnake occurs on the Lower Keys,
Monroe County. It is currently known from only a few of the mainline islands that are traversed by
US highway 1, and is isolated from all other populations of this species (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This snake is generally found along the edges of freshwater wetlands, but has also been detected in
mangrove and spartina habitats (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are fewer than 20 populations of the Lower Florida Keys
Eastern Ribbonsnake. It is known from fewer than ten islands in the Lower Keys. Total population
size is unknown.
Population Trends:
It is estimated that this subspecies has declined by up to 30 percent due to continuing habitat
destruction (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This snake is critically imperiled (T1S1) (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat destruction:
Habitat loss and degradation poses the greatest threat to this species. This snake is associated with
wetland habitats, which are vulnerable to destruction on all private lands within its very limited
range (NatureServe 2008). Loss of habitats for urban and residential development is onging in the
Keys (NatureServe 2008). The Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection reports that the Florida
Keys has been a fast-growing area since the middle of the 20th Century and remains very
vulnerable to habitat conversion for development
(http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/programs/files/final_proj_flkeys_08.pdf). In addition to habitat
conversion, the wetland habitats which support this species are threatened by hydrologic changes
and human use of freshwater resources (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect this snake. There are a few
occurrences on protected lands, at Key Deer Wildlife Refuge and at Coupon Bight Aquatic
Preserve.
References:
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection. 2008. Florida Keys.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/programs/files/final_proj_flkeys_08.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1101

 Scientific Name:
Thoburnia atripinnis
Common Name:
Blackfin Sucker
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Vulnerable

IUCN Status:
LC - Least concern

Range:
The blackfin sucker is restricted to headwater streams of the Barren River System of Kentucky
and Tennessee, including Long, Salt, and Big Trace Creeks (Timmons et al. 1983, Page and Burr
1991).
Habitat:
This fish occurs in small creeks with clear water, typically in pools with rocky bottoms and
overhanging vegetation. It spawns in swift water (Timmons et al. 1983).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) cites information indicating 13 locations for the blackfin sucker.
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) describes this fish as potentially stable. AFS (Jelks et al. 2008) list
population trends as mixed with some declining and some increasing.
Status:
Within its very narrow range, this fish can be locally common. It is considered imperiled in
Kentucky and critically imperiled in Tennessee (NatureServe 2008). AFS (Jelks et al. 2008) list
it as vulnerable because of the present or threatened destruction, modification, or reduction of its
habitat or range and a narrow range.
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) list siltation and eutrophication from agricultural runoff, as well as stream
channelization as the most serious threats to this species' habitat. Jelks et al. (2008) list it as
vulnerable because of the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) states that no blackfin sucker populations are protected. It is deemed as in
need of management in Tennessee and a species of greatest conservation need in Kentucky, neither
of which provides any protection for the species.
Other factors:
Jelks et al. (2008) list this fish as vulnerable because of a narrow, restricted range. It is threatened
by pollution from agriculture (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Jelks, H.J., S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,
J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.
Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor, and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation Status of Imperiled
North American Freshwater and Diaddromous Fishes. Fisheries, V. 33(8): 372-407.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1102

 Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of
Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 432 pp.
Timmons, T. J., J. S. Ramsey, and B. H. Bauer. 1983. Life history and habitat of the blackfin
sucker, MOXOSTOMA ATRIPINNE (Osteichthyes: Catostomidae). Copeia 1983:538-41.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1103

 Scientific Name:
Toxolasma lividus
Common Name:
Purple Lilliput
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
NE - Not evaluated

Range:
This mussel, also known as T. lividus, is found in the lower Ohio River drainage from southwest
Ohio downstream nearly to the mouth of the Ohio. West of the Mississippi River, it occurs in
southern Missouri, northern Arkansas, and potentially in eastern Kansas. In the Cumberland River
drainage, it is widespread but sporadic downstream of Cumberland Falls. This mussel is found in
most of the Tennessee River drainage from southwest Virginia, western North Carolina, and east
Tennessee downstream to the mouth of the Tennessee River. It occurs across northern Alabama in
the Tennessee River and some tributaries (Williams et al. 2008).
Habitat:
The Purple Lilliput inhabits a diversity of substrates including fine-particles, mud, sand, gravel,
cobbles and/or boulders in riffles or flats immediatly above riffles (NatureServe 2008). It is
known from the headwaters of small to medium sized rivers. Toxolasma lividus generally occurs
at depths of less than 1 m, but can adapt to deeper lentic environments as evidenced by its
occurrence in the Wheeler Reservoir in the Tennessee River Drainage (Roe 2002), but it is very
rarely encountered in big river habitat or reservoirs (Gordon and Lazer 1989).
Populations:
Although this species has a wide geographic range, NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are
only from 6-20 extant populations. The range of T. lividus is poorly understood because of
confusion with T. glans, but both forms have undergone considerable declines in range. Total
population size for this species is unknown. NatureServe (2008) reports that it is rarely detected
in surveys, describing it as "quite rare but widely scattered," and providing the following details:
"In the Maumee River drainage, it is rare and very sporadic in the headwater lakes of the St. Joseph
River (Indiana/Ohio) (Grabarkiewicz and Crail, 2006). In Illinois, it is now restricted to the Little
Wabash and Vermilion Rivers where it is sporadic but was formerly known from the Embarras
River and Wabash River tributaries and Wabash River (Cummings and Mayer, 1997). In
Missouri, it is known only in southern Missouri in a few sites (Oesch, 1995). In Arkansas, it is
known from the Ouachita River system in South Fourche La Fave River, Poteau River, Illinois
River but always in low population numbers (Harris and Gordon, 1997); also historically in the
Cache River (Christian et al., 2005). In Tennessee, it was found throughout the upper Tennessee
River system, including the Powell, Clinch, Emory, Holston, French Broad, Tellico, Little Pigeon,
and Little Rivers, as well as the main channel of the Tennessee River below Knoxville. It was
also found in the Duck and Elk Rivers and occurred in the Caney Fork, Stones and Harpeth Rivers
and numerous tributaries of the Cumberland River system in Tennessee (Parmalee and Bogan,
1998). A recent study of the North Fork Holston River in Virginia (Jones and Neves, 2007) did
not find this species and is likely extirpated there or is extremely rare. It was recently collected in
the Middle Fork North Branch Vermillion River in Illinois and Jordan Creek in Indiana (Szafoni
et al., 2000). In Indiana, Harmon (1989) reported it from seven of 12 sites surveyed in Graham
Creek in the southeast portion of the state; as well as from Sugar Creek (east fork White River
drainage) in central Indiana (Harmon, 1992) (most weathered shells but some living and fresh

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1104

 dead) and Tippecanoe River (Cummings and Berlocher, 1990). It can still be found in Wabash
River tributaries in Indiana (Fisher, 2006). In Ohio it is nearly extirpated (Watters, 1995)
occurring in a few sites in the Little Miami and St. Josephs drainages as well as the Maumee
drainage (Grabarkiewicz and Crail, 2006). In Kentucky, it is sporadic in the Green River and
upper Cumberland River below Cumberland Falls (Cicerello and Schuster, 2003). In a 2004
survey of 24 sites in the Choctawhatchee, Yellow, and Conecuh-Escambia River drainages in
southern Alabama, Pilarczyk et al. (2006) found this species (although acknowledged some
confusion as to which species of Toxolasma it should be listed as) at 16 sites (including just over
the border in Eightmile Creek in Florida). It is known from the Clinton River drainage in
Michigan (Strayer, 1980)."
Population Trends:
The Purple Lilliput is declining (decline of 10-30 percent) in the short term and moderately
declining (decline of 25 - 50 percent) in the long term (NatureServe 2008). In the Cumberlandian
region, numbers and occurrences have declined drastically since 1979 and continue to decline.
This mussel is extirpated in North Carolina in the French Broad River (LeGrand et al. 2006), and
likely extirpated in Virginia from the Clinch (VA NHP, pers. comm., 2007 cited in NatureServe
2008) and the North Fork Holston (Jones and Neves 2006). Outside the Cumberlandian region, if
considered to be the same species, it is secure but sporadically distributed with low densities at
many sites.
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Purple Lilliput as extirpated in North Carolina, historical in
Oklahoma and Georgia, critically imperiled in Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and
Virginia, and imperiled in Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, and Missouri. It is classified as rare in
Indiana and Missouri, and is state listed as endangered in Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio. It
is ranked as special concern/vulnerable by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993,
2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) states that the Purple Lilliput has suffered "severe loss of habitat," reporting
that this mussel's habitat has been degraded by "siltation from agriculture and clear-cutting,
channel alteration and inundation, and acid coal mine run-off. Cattle wading in small streams have
destroyed considerable habitat formerly used by this species." Roe (2002) states that this species
is threatened by siltation, dams, and impoundments. The Michigan Natural Features Inventory
(2007) reports that this mussel is threatened by natural flow alterations, siltation, channel
disturbance, point and non-point source pollution, and exotic species. The Kentucky Dept. of Fish
and Wildlife Resources (2005) reports that this species is threatened by gravel and sand removal
and quarrying, coal mining, agricultural runoff, logging, urbanization, and impoundments. Martin
(2008) reports that high fecal coliform levels, nutrient loading, and the potential disturbance of
sediment and gravel budgets threaten mussels, including this species, in the South Fork of the
Spring River in Arkansas (p. 12). Vana-Miller (2007) cites groundwater contamination,
recreation, mining, invasive species, and channel alteration as threats to aquatic species such as
the Purple Lilliput in the Ozarks. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2007) identifies
agricultural related channelization, streambank modification and destabilization, combined sewage
overflows, thermal modification, development, and urban runoff as threats to water quality and
aquatic species such as the Purple Lilliput in the Blanchard River. Virginia's Wildlife Action Plan
(2006) identifies siltation, mine wastes, industrial and municipal effluent pollution, and agricultural and

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1105

 urban runoff as threats to mussels in Virginia's northern ridge and valley province.
This species is also specifically threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining (EPA 2005).
Mountaintop removal can fill in streams entirely and can cause significant downstream and
groundwater pollution. Pollutants associated with mine runoff can disrupt water and ion balance in
aquatic biota (Palmer et al. 2010). Mountaintop removal operations can extirpate entire orders of
aquatic macroinvertebrates, disrupting food web dynamics (Wood 2009).
Disease or predation:
Neves and Odom (1989) cite muskrat predation as a threat to imperiled mussels in the North Fork
of the Holston in Virginia.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect the Purple Lilliput, and no
occurrences are appropriately protected and managed (NatureServe 2008). This mussel is
considered rare in Indiana and Missouri, and is state listed as endangered in Illinois, Kentucky,
Michigan and Ohio, but these designations do not provide this species with any substantial
regulatory protection or habitat protection. NatureServe (2008) states: "No site appears to be
protected in any way," and recommends, "All populations should receive protection through
acquisition, easement, registry, and working with local, state, and federal government agencies on
issues relating to development, water quality, river designation, etc. Watershed management with
particular emphasis on control of acid coal mine run-off and agricultural induced siltation is
critical. . . Stream modifications such as dredging and impoundment should be avoided, as well as
any modifications to the natural fish communities in areas where the species may occur.
Construction, mining, and agricultural activities in stream watersheds should be closely monitored
in order to minimize siltation and acid runoff to streams. Point sources should be closely checked
to insure compliance with discharge permit regulations."
Other factors:
Any factor which degrades water quality or negatively impacts host fish populations threatens the
Purple Lilliput. This mussel is impacted by chemical and organic pollution from agricultural,
domestic, and industrial sources (Roe 2002, NatureServe 2008). The North Fork of the Holston
River has been severely impacted by mercury releases (Flebbe et al. 1996).The Purple Lilliput is
also threatened by invasive species such as the zebra mussel (Roe 2002, NatureServe 2008). Sweet
(2003) reports that the lone surviving population of this species is Michigan is severely
threatened by zebra mussels.
References:
Christian, A.D., J.L. Harris, W.R. Posey, J.F. Hockmuth, and G.L. Harp. 2005. Freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia: Unionidae) assemblages of the lower Cache River, Arkansas. Southeastern Naturalist,
4(3): 487-512.
Cicerello, R.R. and G.A. Schuster. 2003. A guide to the freshwater mussels of Kentucky.
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series, 7: 1-62.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1106

 Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1997. Distributional checklist and status of Illinois freshwater
mussels (Mollusca: Unionacea). Pages 129-145 in: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer,
and T.J. Naimo (eds.) Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the
future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium, October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.
Cummings, K.S. and J.M. Berlocher. 1990. The naiades or freshwater mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) of the Tippecanoe River, Indiana. Malacological Review, 23: 83-98.
Fisher, B.E. 2006. Current status of freshwater mussels (Order Unionoida) in the Wabash River
drainage of Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, 115(2): 103-109.
Flebbe, P.A., J. Harrison, G. Kappesser, D. Melgaard, J. Riley, and L.W. Swift Jr. 1996. Status of
Aquatic Resources: part 1 of 2, pp. 15-63. In Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere
(SAMAB). The Southern Appalachian Assessment Aquatics Technical Report. Report 2 of 5.
USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.
Gordon, M.E. and J.B. Layzer. 1989. Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of the Cumberland River
review of life histories and ecological relationships. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
Report, 89(15): 1-99.
Grabarkiewicz, J. and T. Crail. 2006. Freshwater Mussels of the Maumee Drainage. A
Compendium and Guide to the Unionids of the Maumee River and Tributaries. Lucas Soil and
Water Conservation District, Maumee, Ohio. 61 pp.
Harmon, J.L. 1989. Freshwater bivalve mollusks (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Graham Creek, a small
southeastern Indiana stream. Malacology Data Net, 2(5/6): 113-121.
Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1987. Distribution and status of rare and endangered mussels
(Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of
Science, 41: 49-56.
Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy, Bivalves. Accessed Jan. 29, 2010 at:
http://www.kdfwr.state.ky.us/kfwis/stwg/Volume%20II/Bivalvia/Bivalvia.htm#264
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Martin, H. 2008. Physical and Biological Assessment of the South Fork of the Spring River,
Arkansas. Arkansas State University Masters Thesis. Jonesboro, Arkansas. Accessed Jan. 29,
2010 at:
http://www.clt.astate.edu/achristian/Research/Papers/HCM%20Entire%20Thesis%20080602.pdf
Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 2007. Rare Species Explorer (Web Application). Available
online at http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/explorer [Accessed Jan 29, 2010]
Neves, R. J. and M. C. Odom. 1989. Muskrat predation on endangered freshwater mussels in
Virginia. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:934–941.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1107

 Oesch, R.D. 1995. Missouri Naiades. A Guide to the Mussels of Missouri. Second edition.
Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, Missouri. viii + 271 pp.
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, W.H. Schlesinger, K.N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M.S.
Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O.L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P.S. White, and P.R. Wilcock.
2010. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 327: 148-149.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
Pilarczyk, M.M., P.M. Stewart, D.N. Shelton, H.N. Blalock-Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2006.
Current and Recent historical freshwater mussel assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains.
Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2): 205-226.
Roe, K.J. 2002. Conservation Assessment for the purple lilliput (Toxolasma lividus) Rafinesque,
1831. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region report. 11 pp.
Sweet, D.J. 2003. Purple Lilliput survey, rescue, and recovery program for southeastern
Michigan, status report. Meeting abstracts third biennial symposium Freshwater Mollusk
Conservation Society. March 2002, Durham, N.C. Accessed Jan. 29, 2010 at:
http://ellipse.inhs.uiuc.edu/FMCS/Meetings/2003Symp/2003Abstracts.pdf
Szafoni, R.E., K.S. Cummings, and C.A. Mayer. 2000. Freshwater mussels (Mollusca:
Unionidae) of the Middle Branch, North Fork Vermillion River, Illinois, Indiana. Transactions of
the Illinois State Academy of Sceince, 93(3): 229-237.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix F Federally Listed Threatened
and Endangered and Species of Concern. Region 3, Philadelphia. EPA 9-03-R-05002.
Vana-Miller, D. L. 2007. Water Resources Foundation Report, Ozark National Scenic
Riverways. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRWRD/NRR—2007/363. National Park Service,
Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, Colorado. Accessed Jan. 29, 2010 at:
http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/planning/Foundation_reports/Reports/OZARWRFRfinal.pdf
Virginia's Wildlife Action Plan. 2006. Northern Ridge and Valley. Accessed Jan. 29, 2010 at:
http://bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-action-plan/chapter-7.pdf
Watters, G.T. 1995. A field guide to the freshwater mussels of Ohio. revised 3rd edition. Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus, Ohio. 122 pp.
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the
Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
908 pp.
Wood, D. 2009. Memorandum to J. Bailey, J. Wirts, and P. Campbell. Evidence for Secretary
Randy Huffman. June 30, 2009. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Charleston, WV.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1108

 Scientific Name:
Toxolasma pullus
Common Name:
Savannah Lilliput
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened
Range:
The Savannah Lilliput is known from the Neuse River in North Carolina south to the Altamaha
basin in Georgia (Johnson 1967, 1970), but very few historically disjunct populations remain
extant (Alderman 1994, Bogan and Alderman 2004, Bogan 2002). This mussel occurred
historically in the Ocmulgee and Altamaha Rivers in Georgia, in the Savannah River and the
Wateree River in South Carolina, and in the Catawba River, Beaver Creek, and Cape Fear river
systems in North Carolina (Johnson 1970).
Habitat:
This mussel is found in silty sand or mud in shallow water, generally at the edges of streams,
rivers and lakes. It has also been detected in backwaters, but is rarely found in deeper lake waters.
If water levels fluctuate, it will move up and down in the water column (Bogan and Alderman
2004, Bogan 2002).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are from 6-20 populations of Savannah Lilliput, but many
historical populations are no longer extant. As of 1994, Alderman reported that there were seven
extant populations with this species remaining in the Ohoopee River in Georgia, the Savannah
River in South Carolina and Georgia, and Richardson Creek in the Rocky River basin, Densons
Creek and the Little River in the Pee Dee River basin, and Lake Waccamaw and University Lake in
the Haw River basin in North Carolina. Of these populations, only three have shown any evidence
of recent reproduction. In North Carolina, the only population that appears stable is at University
Lake in Orange County (Hanlon and Levine 2004). Price (2005) reports that this population
appears to have exhibited recent decline. The Waccamaw, Cape Fear, and Neuse River basin
populations may be extirpated (Bogan 2002, LeGrand et al. 2006). This mussel was known from
four locations in South Carolina primarily in the Saluda River basin, one of these now consists
only of relict shells, and only the Lake Marion population has been reported as extant recently. A
2004 extensive survey at the type locality in the Wateree River in South Carolina in 2004 failed
to find any surviving individuals (Jennifer Price, SC DNR, pers. comm., October 2005 cited in
NatureServe 2008). Specimens were recently collected from a single site in the Ogeechee River
in Georgia, this mussel may be hanging on in the Altamaha (SC DNR, pers. comm., 2005 cited in
NatureServe 2008). Catena Group (2007) detected this mussel at a single site in the Savannah
River. FWS (2006) reports this mussel from "several sites" in the Savannah. Its distribution is very
localized, and in very few locations. In 1999, this mussel made up 3.18 percent (relative abundance) of
14,873 mussels collected in surveys of 46 sites in 12 tributary streams of the lower Flint River Basin,
Georgia (Gagnon et al. 2006). In 2004, only 7 individuals were detected in Lake Marion in South
Carolina and 3 in the Ogeechee River in Georgia in 2004 (J. Price, SC DNR, pers. comm., 2005 cited in
NatureServe 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1109

 Population Trends:
The Savannah Lilliput is very rapidly to rapidly declining (decline of 30-70 percent) in the short
term, and has experienced a large long-term decline of 75-90 percent (NatureServe 2008). This
mussel is likely extirpated from the Neuse and Waccamaw River basins (Bogan 2002). Only
three of seven extant populations reported by Alderman (1994) showed any signs of reproduction,
and the other four were declining and may now be lost (Hanlon and Levine 2004). NatureServe
(2008) reports a personal communication from Keferl (1996) indicating that this mussel is very
rare in the Ohoopee River, but is reproducing. NatureServe (2008) states, "All the extant
populations, except one, have very limited distributions and one change in the environment could
cause a population to become extinct. Recent quantitative surveys indicate it represents only a few
percent of the total individuals of all species of mussels present in the remaining river systems
where it occurs."
Status:
The Savannah lilliput is a federal species of concern and a species of special concern in South
Carolina, where it is ranked as critically imperiled by NatureServe. It is imperiled in Georgia and
criticaly imperiled in North Carolina (NatureServe 2008). This mussel may now be limited to
three or fewer reproducing populations (NatureServe 2008). It is ranked as threatened by the
American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
The Savannah River population of this mussel is threatened by habitat loss and modification due to
dredging by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to straighten the river for navigability (Alderman
1994). NatureServe (2008) states, “This dredging work seriously impacts the best populations in
the world.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2008) reports that this mussel’s habitat in the
Savannah is lost or degraded due to loss of connectivity with the main river at low flows,
especially during warmer seasons when dissolved oxygen levels are low and cutoff bends and
sloughs where this mussel occurs experience stagnant conditions. Because of their very localized
distribution, the Clouds Creek and Asbill Pond populations are threatened by nearby dam
operations. Changes in flow or siltation resulting from the dam could extirpate these populations
(Alderman 1994). The Asbill Pond population is also threatened by eutrophication (Alderman
1994). The small population in Richardson Creek is threatened by road improvements, wastewater
treatment discharge, and development (Alderman 1994). The small populations at Densons Creek
and Little River are also threatened by wastewater treatment plant outfall. The Lake Waccamaw
population, if still extant, is threatened by poor water quality (North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission cited in Alderman 1994). The University Lake population is very vulnerable to
habitat degradation due to its limited distribution, and is threatened by quick changes in water
levels and compaction and sedimentation from off-road vehicle riding along the banks (Alderman
1994, Hanlon and Levine 2004). Price (2005) reports that this mussel’s primarily shallow water
distribution makes it particularly vulnerable to off-road vehicles, droughts, and drawdowns, citing
a personal communication with Catena Group reporting numerous stranded mussels on the banks
of Lake Marion when water levels were extremely low in 2005. Price (2005) also cites pollution
as a threat to this species. Catena Group (2007) state that this mussel is threatened by channel
modifications and altered river discharge patterns which create bank and sediment instability. The
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (2009) reports that aquatic species in the Yadkin PeeDee River basin, including the Savannah Lilliput, are threatened by increasing development and
decreasing water quality. The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources (Wisniewski 2008) reports that

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1110

 this mussel is threatened by excess sedimentation due to inadequate riparian buffer zones, and by
all-terrain vehicles.
Disease or predation:
Alderman (1994) reports that this shallow water species is easy prey for raccoons which feed
along the shoreline of various waterways (Alderman 1994). Because racoons are a synanthropic
species, this threat will increase as development increases. Hanlon and Levine (2004) report that
predation is the greatest threat to the only remaining viable population in North Carolina at
University Lake in Orange County. The Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources (Wisniewski 2008)
reports that this mussel is threatened by direct and indirect competition and predation by the
introduced flathead catfish which both consumes mussels and their host fishes.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms which afford this species with meaningful protection.
Other factors:
Because this mussel is distributed in small isolated populations, it is vulnerable to stochastic
events. Price (2005) states, "The extremely low numbers of this species at so few sites make it
particularly vulnerable; entire populations may be lost due to one smallscale event." The dispersal
of this species is limited by dams and navigational structures, making it difficult to impossible to
escape in the event of habitat degradation.
References:
Alderman, J. 1994. Status survey for the Savannah lilliput Toxolasma pullus (Conrad, 1838). U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperative Agreement No. 14-16-004-89-954.
Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 101 pp.
Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Alderman. 2004. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of South
Carolina. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences: Raleigh, North Carolina. 64 pp.
Gagnon, P., W. Michener, M. Freeman, and J. Brim Box. 2006. Unionid habitat and assemblage
composition in coastal plain tributaries of Flint River (Georgia). Southeastern Naturalist, 5(1):
31-52.
Hanlon, S.D. and J.F. Levine. 2004. Notes on the life history and demographics of the Savannah
lilliput (Toxolasma pullus) (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in University Lake, NC. Southeastern
Naturalist, 3(2): 289-296.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard
University, 140(6): 263-449.
Keferl, E. P. Department of Biology, Brunswick Junior College, Brunswick, Georgia. Personal
communication.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, S.E. McRae, and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, North Carolina. 104 pp.
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1111

 North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2009. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. Accessed Feb. 2,
2010 at: h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/basinwide/yadkin/yadch2.doc
Porter, H. J. 1985. Rare and endangered fauna of Lake Waccamaw, North Carolina Watershed
System. Molluscan census and ecological interrelationships. North Carolina Endangered Species
Restoration Final Report to the North Carolina Wildlife Resouces Commission.
Price, J. 2005. South Carolina's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, Savannah
Lilliput species account. South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources. Accessed Feb. 2, 2010 at:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/SavannahLilliput.pdf
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (W.F. Adams, J.M. Alderman,
R.G. Biggins, A.G. Gerberich, E.P. Kefverl, H.J. Porter, and S.S. van Davender eds.). 1990. A
report on the conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact. Temporary deviation drought contingency plan. Savannah River Basin. Accessed Jan. 3,
2008 at:
http://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Sav%20River%20Drought%20EA%20and%20Appendices.pdf

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1112

 Scientific Name:
Triaenodes tridontus
Common Name:
Three-tooth Triaenodes Caddisfly
G Rank:
G2

IUCN Status:
EX - Extinct

Range:
NatureServe (2008) indicates that T. tridontus is only known from Oklahoma (historical original
description, Ross, 1934), the Florida panhandle (historical, 1938), and the coastal plain of Alabama
(a handful of sites in the 1980s). Surveys in Oklahoma in the 1990s did not detect the species, and
some believe that it may never have occurred in the state and that the type specimen was
mislabeled. Harris collected 17 specimens in Little Bassett Creek and Little Stave Creek, Clarke County,
AL in 1985 and two in the Cahaba River at Sprott, Perry County, AL in 1991.
Populations:
This species is likely extant only in one to a few populations in Alabama (Harris and Lago 1990).
Population Trends:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is very rapidly declining in the short term (decline of
50-70 percent).
Status:
This species was thought to be extinct but its status has been changed by NatureServe (2008) from
historical to critically imperiled (AL (S1), FL (SH?), OK (SH)). It is still rated as extinct by the
IUCN. It was last detected in 1991 and NatureServe states "If extant population found (last in
1991), protect at all costs."
Habitat destruction:
Caddisflies are threatened by land-disturbing activities and run-off from a variety of sources.
Because of this species' extremely limited range, it is highly vulnerable to any form of habitat
degradation.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
NatureServe (2008) reports that no occurrences of this species are protected.
References:
Clemson University Department of Entomology (J.C. Morse, ed.). 2002. Last Updated 5
September 2006. Trichoptera World Checklist. Online. Available:
http://entweb.clemson.edu/database/trichopt/index.htm.
Franz, R. (ed.) 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida: Volume Six: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida: Gainesville, Florida. 131 pp.
Harris, S.C. and P.K. Lago. 1990. Annotated checklist of the Rhyacophiloidea and Integripalpia
(Trichoptera) of Alabama. Entomological News 101(1):57-66
Schweitzer, D.F. 1989. A review of Category 2 Insecta in USFWS regions 3, 4, 5. Prepared for
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wiggins, G.B. 1977. Larvae of the North American caddisfly genera (Trichoptera). Univ.
Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 401 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1113

 Scientific Name:
Trillium texanum
Common Name:
Texas Trillium
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Also known as the Texas wakerobin, this species is restricted to a portion of east Texas and one
neighboring Louisiana parish; natural heritage records show this species in Cass, Harrison,
Nacagdoches, Rusk, Smith, and Wood Counties, Texas, and Caddo County, Louisiana. It is
reportedly extirpated from Houston and Panola Counties, Texas (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This flower occurs in low, swampy areas in hardwood forests, in baygalls and sandy uplands, and
along the seep borders of woodland streams, often establishing in sphagnum mats (NatureServe
2008). In Louisiana, associated species include swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora), sweetbay
magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum), and various fern species (e.g., royal fern, Osmunda regalis, cinnamon fern, O.
cinnamomea, and netted chain fern, Woodwardia areolata) (LNHP 2009).
Ecology:
The trillium flowers in March and April, before canopy has fully leafed out (LNHP 2009).
Populations:
There are eight existing occurrences of this flower in Texas, and three in Louisiana (NatureServe
2008). Population sizes are not specifically reported, but are known to be highly variable among
sites.
Population Trends:
Trend has not been reported for this rare flower.
Status:
The Texas trillium is restricted to a relatively small range within which very few occurrences are
known. Its habitat is widely threatened by conversion to timber plantations, and much has already
been lost. NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically imperiled in Louisiana and
imperiled in Texas.
Habitat destruction:
The trillium's habitat is widely threatened by drainage, clearcutting, and conversion to timber
plantations, pasture, and other agricultural uses (LNHP 2009). Urbanization and unsustainable
agriculture or forestry practices also cause watershed-wide erosion, which may eventually bury T.
texanum's streamside habitat (Kral 1982). Trampling by livestock permitted to graze in this
species' habitat is significant (LNHP 2009).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect the Texas trillium.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1114

 Other factors:
The Texas trillium may be threatened by exclusion by invasive exotic plants in some areas
(NatureServe 2008).
References:
Kral, R. 1982. Trillium texanum, Paper 141. In A.F. Robinson (ed.). Endangered and threatened
species of the Southeastern United States. General Report SA-GA-7. U. S. Forest Service,
Atlanta, GA.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP). 2009. Rare plants of Louisiana: Trillium texanum,
Texas trillium. Accessed online February 1, 2010
<<www.wlf.louisiana.gov/pdfs/experience/.../trillium%20texanum.pdf>>
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
February 1, 2010)

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1115

 Scientific Name:
Troglocambarus maclanei
Common Name:
Spider Cave Crayfish
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern
Range:
T. maclanei is restricted to Florida, with all occurrences lying in a single arc about 80 miles long
and extending from Suwannee County to Hernando County.
Habitat:
The Spider Cave crayfish occupies subterranean/karstic waters near sites of detrital input,
particularly large sinkholes and areas under bat roosts in caves. Deyrup and Franz (1994) report
that "Spider crayfishes have been found in caves, sinks, and spring caves. It has been suggested that
the species is attracted to fine detritus that floats near the walls and ceilings of flooded cave
passages."
Ecology:
Most of the time this species is observed hanging upside down from the ceilings of caves, rarely
dropping to the floor. The cave floor is usually coated with fine silt and often with tree litter.
According to Deyrup and Franz (1994) "[t]he species is cannibalistic in captivity and may be an
active predator on small invertebrates in caves."
Populations:
Approximately sixteen occurrences of this species are known. Concerning population size,
NatureServe (2008) states: "Population information is sketchy. In 1942, Hobbs recorded 42 T.
maclanei in its type locality, but in a study by Doonan (2001), only two were recorded. Two
individuals were recorded at a second cave also studied by Doonan (2001). There is no population
data available for the remaining five caves, and no further studies have been conducted at the type
locality or second cave in recent years."
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as imperiled. Florida lists it as a Species of Greatest
Conservation Need. AFS lists it as Vulnerable (Taylor et al. 2007).
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) reports that this species is susceptible to pollution of the aquifer and changes
in inflow of detritus, and that it is threatened by urban development. The type locality is
threatened by urban development of nearby Gainesville, which could be having adverse impacts on
the groundwater quality. In at least three caves, it is threatened by disturbance by SCUBA divers
(Doonan 2001). According to Deyrup and Franz (1994), "[t]his crayfish is restricted to groundwater
habitats in caves, where it maintains small populations, usually in association with fine silt. The species
is probably susceptible to groundwater pollution and may be affected by changes in land use."
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
T. maclanei occurs in the springs of Manatee Springs State Park (Florida DEP 2004). No existing
regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1116

 References:
Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2008. Protecting Florida’s Springs: An
Implementation Guidebook. Available online at
www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/springs/Files/springsimplementationguidebook.pdf. Last accessed
June 5, 2009.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Manatee Springs State Park
Management Plan. Available online at
http://tlhwww4.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/ManateeSpringsStatePark.pdf. Last
accessed January 4, 2010.
Franz, R. (Ed.). 1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume 6: Invertebrates. Univ.
Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 131 pp.
Franz, R., and J. A. Bauer. 1983a. Cave Site Report: Orange Lake Cave. Unpublished report to
Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
Franz, R., and J. A. Bauer. 1983b. Cave Site Report: Chert Cave, Marion Co., Florida.
Unpublished report to Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Review of biologically significant caves and their faunas
in Florida and south Georgia. Brimleyana 20:1-109.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr., H.H. Hobbs III., and M.A. Daniels. 1977. A review of the troglobitic decapod
crustaceans of the Americas. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 244: 1-183.
Hobbs, Horton. H. Jr. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda:
Astacidae, Cambaridae & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D. C. 236 pp.
Lee, D.S. 1969. Notes on the Feeding Behavior of Cave-Dwelling Bullfrogs. Herpetologica, Vol.
25:3 (211-212).
Taylor, Christopher A., Schuster, Guenter A., Cooper, John E., DiStefano, Robert J., Eversole,
Arnold G., Hamr, Premek, Hobbs, Horton H., III., Robison, Henry W., Skelton, Christopher E.,
Thoma, Roger F.. 2007. A reassessment of the Conservation Status of Crayfishes of the United
States and Canada after 10+ Years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372-389
Walsh, S.J. 2001. Freshwater macrofauna of Florida karst habitats. Pages 78-88 in E. Kuniansky
(ed.). 2001. U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, St. Petersburg, Florida,
February 13-16, 2001.USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1117

 Scientific Name:
Tsuga caroliniana
Common Name:
Carolina Hemlock
G Rank:
G3

IUCN Status:
NT - Near threatened

Range:
The Carolina hemlock is endemic to the Appalachian Mountains in North Carolina, Virginia,
Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee; it has the most restricted range of any hemlock species
in North America (Humphrey 1989, James 1959). Natural heritage records indicate the species is
present in Georgia's Rabun County, and in Tennessee's Carter, Johnson, Sullivan, Unicoi, and
Washington Counties (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
Carolina hemlock is generally considered a montane species, found on rocky slopes, cliffs, and
ridges in the Appalachian Mountains (Humphrey 1989, USDA 2005). It is adapted to dry,
exposed, and nutrient-poor habitats (Rentch et al. 2000). Carolina hemlock generally grows at
elevations between 2,000 and 4,000 feet above sea level (NatureServe 2008, USDA 2005). It
prefers acidic soils with low nutrient levels, often lithic, coarse, loamy, and containing a high
percentage of cobbles and stones (Humphrey 1989, Rentch et al. 2000). Within this narrow
habitat preference, T. caroliniana is generally dominant in the forest canopy over dense shrub
strata and sparse herbaceous strata (NatureServe 2008, Rentch et al. 2000).
Ecology:
Carolina hemlock is a coniferous species that reaches between 40 and 70 feet in height. It begins
producing wind-dispersed seeds at around 20 years of age. Hemlocks, including this one, only
rarely layer and do not root-sprout. Cones are pollinated in March and April, ripen from August
to September of the following year, and seed dispersal occurs from September until the end of
winter (USDA 2005). They are most often found with Acer rubrum, Quercus prinus, and other
maple or oak species (James 1959).
The Carolina hemlock exhibits ecological traits typical of slow-growth strategists: it is adapted
to dry conditions, acidic, shallow soils low in nutrients, extreme temperatures, and thick shade.
Its long life span, slow growth rate, and evergreen leaves make it well-adapted to harsh
environments. Evergreen needles extend the growing season, minimize nutrient loss in the form
of leaf litter, and reduce water loss through transpiration by reducing surface area (Rentch et al.
2000). Because of its long life span and slow growth rate, Carolina hemlock eventually replaces
other canopy species, forming almost pure stands (Humphrey 1989, Rentch et al. 2000). Its shade
tolerance allows it to establish itself even in dense shrub stratum (Humphrey 1989). Dominant in
very late stages of succession, Carolina hemlock has a significant influence on local
environmental conditions. As stands grow older, the slow release of nutrients from Carolina
hemlock’s leaf litter results in podzolization (USDA 2005).
Carolina hemlock is an important component of the forest ecosystem. Its seeds provide food for
numerous birds and mammals, its bark is eaten by beavers, porcupines, and rabbits, and its foliage
supplements the diet of white-tailed deer, providing shelter and bedding as well, during the winter
months (USDA 2005).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1118

 Populations:
Though exact numbers are not known, the Carolina hemlock is of "limited occurrence and
distribution" (Humphrey 1989). There is only one naturally occuring population left in Georgia
(Ceska 2003).
Population Trends:
This species is reportedly in serious decline (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
The Carolina hemlock’s range is restricted to five states in the Southeast, and its habitat is further
restricted in this range to small mountainside areas (Elias 1980). Though still used in some
capacity as an ornamental species, it is so limited in extent that the species is no longer
considered commercially viable (USDA 2005). Though it dominates in late successional stages,
these pure stands of Carolina hemlock are extremely rare and rapidly disappearing.
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Carolina hemlock as critically imperiled in Georgia and vulnerable
in North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
Habitat destruction:
The Carolina hemlock is vulnerable to habitat destruction because it is somewhat of a habitat
specialist, thus protection of the rocky outcroppings and slopes it prefers from oil or gas
extraction, timber harvest, or other anthropogenic threats is essential (NatureServe 2008).
Disease or predation:
The hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae), an introduced insect pest, is the greatest threat to
Eastern hemlock populations. Since its introduction to the region, it has killed thousands of trees.
This aphid-like insect feeds on sap from hemlock foliage, simultaneously injecting toxins that
accelerate dieback and decline; infested trees may be killled within four years of infection. The
HWA is further dispersed by humans through logging, recreation, and by wind, birds, and other
natural means (Malinoski 1998).
The Carolina hemlock is also threatened, though less so, by the elongate hemlock scale (Fiorinia
externa), which depletes moisture reserves within needles, causing them to be prematurely
dropped (VA NHP 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
The Carolina hemlock is listed as threatened in Tennessee, but this designation affords it no
substantive regulatory protection; no existing regulatory mechanisms protect this tree from habitat
loss, the hemlock woolly adelgid, or the various other threats it faces.
References:
Humphrey, L. David. 1989. Life history traits of Tsuga caroliniana Engelm. (Carolina hemlock)
and its role in community dynamics. Castanea 54(3): 172-190.
James, R.L. 1959. Carolina hemlock - wild and cultivated. Castanea 24: 112-134.
Malinoski, Mary K. 1998. Hemlock Woolly Adelgid. University of Maryland, Cooperative
Extension, Home and Garden.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1119

 Rentch, J. S., H. S. Adams, R. B. Coxe, and S. L. Stephenson. 2000. An ecological study of a
Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana) community in southwestern Virginia. Castanea 65(1):1-8.
Tennessee Natural Heritage Program. 2002. Rare plant list. Department of Environment and
Conservation.
USDA. 2005. Fire effects information system (FEIS) database.
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/tsucar/all.html, accessed 2005.11.06.
Virginia Natural Heritage Program (VA NHP). 2008. Natural heritage fact sheet: Carolina
hemlock, Tsuga caroliniana. Accessed online December 8, 2009
<<www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/.../fstcaroliniana.pdf>>

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1120

 Scientific Name:
Urspelerpes brucei
Common Name:
Patch-nosed Salamander
Range:
Camp et al. (2009) report this salamander from a single stream at the foot of the Blue Ridge
escarpment in Stephens County, Georgia. It has since been detected at six additional sites in
Georgia and South Carolina (C. Camp, pers. comm., January 2010).
Habitat:
This salamander was discovered in a first-order stream, either within or along the banks of the
non-inundated portion of the streambed. It occurs under rocks and in loose leaf litter. This species
was discovered during a severe drought and it is possible that it could utilize terrestrial
microhabitats under suitably mesic conditions (Camp et al. 2009). Based on additional
occurrences, it is associated with headwater streams in steep, mesic ravines (C. Camp, pers.
comm., January 2010).
Populations:
Camp et al. (2009) report one known population of this salamander. The authors have since
detected six other occurrences (C. Camp, pers. comm., January 2010).
Population Trends:
No trend information is available for this recently discovered species. Camp et al. (2009) state "It
seems likely that this species may be extremely rare, perhaps occurring in such few numbers as to
be in danger of extinction" (p. 93).
Status:
NatureServe (2009) classifies this salamander as critically imperiled (G1) in Georgia where it is
apparently very rare.
Habitat destruction:
The Patch-nosed Salamander is very vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation due to its limited
range. Because this salamander is associated with headwater streams in steep, mesic ravines, it is
highly vulnerable to logging operations, which result in increased sedimentation, increased water
temperature, and decreased water quality. The State of Georgia no longer requires stream buffer
zone protections for headwater streams, heightening the threat to this rare species from timbering
activities.
Overutilization:
Because this salamander is extremely rare, overutilization for scientific purposes or illegal harvest
by herpetological collectors seeking rare species poses a serious threat to its survival.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect this species. Concerning the need for
regulatory protection for this newly discovered salamander, Camp et al. (2009) state: "It seems
likely that this species may be extremely rare, perhaps occurring in such few numbers as to be in
danger of extinction. Protection of this remarkable new species should be of paramount concern."

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1121

 Other factors:
The Patch-nosed Salamander is inherently vulnerable to extinction because of its extremely
limited range. Camp et al. (2009) state, "It seems likely that this species may be extremely rare,
perhaps occurring in such few numbers as to be in danger of extinction." Any factor which
decreases water quality also threatens the survival of this salamander.
References:
Camp, C.D. Personal communication. January 2010.
Camp, C.D., Peterman, W.E., Milanovich, J.R., Lamb, T., Maerz, J.C., and Wake, D.B. (2009). A
new genus and species of lungless salamander (family Plethodontidae) from the Appalachian
highlands of the south-eastern United States. Journal of Zoology 279:86-94.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1122

 Scientific Name:
Vicia ocalensis
Common Name:
Ocala Vetch
G Rank:
G1
Range:
The Ocala vetch has a very restricted range and is known only from Lake and Marion counties,
Florida (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This plant grows in sandy peat substrate in open, wet thickets, marshlands, or along streambanks
(Chafin 2000, Wunderlin and Hansen 2003).
Ecology:
Ocala vetch is a perennial vine.
Populations:
Four occurrences of this plant had been reported as of 1997, one of which has not been recently
confirmed (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Population trend has not been reported for this species.
Status:
This plant is restricted to an extremely small range, and only four populations are known. Its
habitat is threatened by hydrological changes. NatureServe (2008) ranks the Ocala vetch as
critically imperiled, and it is state listed as endangered in Florida.
Habitat destruction:
Because all known occurrences are found on National Forest land, this species is not as
vulnerable to urbanization or agriculture as many other wetland species. Logging and related site
preparation may still pose a threat, and any resultant hydrological changes could destroy V.
ocalensis' limited habitat (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
All known occurrences are found in the Ocala National Forest and considered by resource
management plans, but may still be vulnerable to hydrological changes that destroy habitat. Though
it is state-listed as endangered, this designation offers the Ocala vetch no substantial regulatory
protections; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.
Other factors:
Invasive exotic plants are problematic in parts of the Ocala National Forest and may eventually
threaten this species (Miller 2002).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1123

 References:
Chafin, L. G. 2000. Field guide to the rare plants of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory,
Tallahassee. [http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/]
Hall, David W. 1993. Illustrated plants of Florida and the coastal plain. Maupin House,
Gainesville, FL. pp. 431.
Miller, L. 2002. Environmental assessment for invasive exotic plant management, Lake George
and Seminole ranger districts,
Ocala National Forest. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 107 pp.
[www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/nnis/herbicide.../noxweedEA9_5_2002.rtf]
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
February 2, 2010).
Wunderlin, R.P. and B.F. Hansen. 2003. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida. 2nd edition.
University Press of Florida, Tampa. 788 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1124

 Scientific Name:
Villosa arkansasensis
Common Name:
Ouachita Creekshell
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern
Range:
The Ouachita Creekshell occurs in the Ozark region (Johnson 1980), in the headwaters of the Red
River including the Little River and the Kiamichi River, and the headwaters of the Ouachita River
including the Saline River, and the Arkansas drainage (Anderson 2006, NatureServe 2008). It also
occurs in the Glover River and the Mountain Fork River (Vaughn 2003, Spooner and Vaughn
2007) and in the Poteau River (Harris et al. 1997).
Habitat:
This mussel is found in headwater streams in flowing water conditions.
Populations:
There are an estimated 6-20 populations of this mussel (NatureServe 2008). In Arkansas, this
species is extant in the Poteau, Ouachita, and Saline River systems (Harris et. al. 1997). In
Oklahoma, this mussel occurs in the headwaters of the Little River (C. Mather pers. comm. cited
in NatureServe 2008, Vaughn and Taylor 1999, Vaughn 2000, Galbraith et al. 2008), eight sites in
the Glover River (Vaughn, 2000, 2003), eight sites in the Mountain Fork River (Spooner and
Vaughn 2007) and potentially in the Kiamichi River. Surveys in Arkansas found catch per unit
effort ranges of 0.004 to 0.183 per minute for this mussel.
Population Trends:
This mussel is rapidly declining (decline of 30-50 percent) in the short term and has experienced
a long-term decline of 25-50 percent (NatureServe 2008). A statistical test comparing 1988 to
2004 populations of this species found a significant decrease in creekshell population size, with
14 stations showing population decline (Seagraves et al. 2005). This species has become more
rare across its range, and now occurs at fewer sites and in lower numbers than in previous surveys
(Anderson 2006). At some sites, this species has become uncommon (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This regional endemic is restricted to headwater streams in a handful of sites. It is critically
imperiled in Oklahoma (S1S2) and imperiled in Arkansas (NatureServe 2008). It is ranked as
special concern/vulnerable by the American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft,
in review).
Habitat destruction:
Vaughn (2003) states that habitat degradation and fragmentation threaten mussels in the Glover
River, particularly siltation resulting from timber harvest and gravel mining. Vaughn states that
gravel mining is occurring within 30 m of the richest mussel site in the Glover River, where this
mussel was detected, posing a serious threat to the continued existence of the mussel bed.
Galbraith et al. (2008) report that mussel populations in the Little River are declining and are
threatened by proposed reservoirs. Spooner and Vaughn (2007) report that in the Mountain Fork
River, this mussel is threatened by siltation from timber harvest and runoff from agricultural
activities and second homes. The Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan (2005) reports that this mussel is

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1125

 threatened by pollution from municipal and industrial point sources, by recreation, development,
nutrient loading, confined animal feeding operations, grazing, sedimentation, and road
construction.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the Ouachita Creekshell.
Other factors:
Harris et al. (1997) cite zebra mussel invasion as a threat to native mussels in the Arkansas and
White Rivers.
References:
Anderson, J.E. (ed.) 2006. Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission,
Little Rock, Arkansas. 2028 pp.
Arkansas Wildlife Action Plan. 2005. Mussels. Accessed Jan. 27, 2010 at:
http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/materials/updates/15mussel.pdf
Galbraith, H.S., D.E. Spooner, and C.C. Vaughn. 2008. Status of rare and endangered freshwater
mussels in southeastern Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist, 53(1): 45-50.
Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997.
Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in
Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 51: 66-89.
Johnson, R.I. 1980. Zoogeography of North American Unionacea (Mollusca: Bivalvia) north of
the maximum Pleistocene glaciation. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard
University, 149(2): 77-189.
Seagraves, S.E., J.L. Farris, and A.D. Christian. 2005. Conservation of the Special Concern
Ouachita creekshell [Villosa arkansasensis (Lea 1852)]: life hisorty, ecology, and conservation
implications. American Geophysics Union Spring Meeting Abstract.
Vaughn, C.C. 2000. Changes in the mussel fauna of the middle Red River drainage: 1910 present. Pages 225-232 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters, B.J. Armitage, P.D.
Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings. Ohio Biological
Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.
Vaughn, C.C. 2003. The mussel fauna of the Glover River, Oklahoma. Proceedings of the
Oklahoma Academy of Science, 83: 1-6.
Vaughn, C.C. and D.E. Spooner. 2004. Status of the mussel fauna of the Poteau River and
implications for commercial harvest. American Midland Naturalist, 152: 336-346.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1126

 Scientific Name:
Villosa choctawensis
Common Name:
Choctaw Bean
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Threatened

IUCN Status:
NE - Not evaluated

Range:
The Choctaw Bean is endemic to the Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee River drainages in
Alabama and Florida with one of the most restricted ranges for its genus (Johnson 1967, Williams
and Butler 1994, NatureServe 2008). Recent surveys have expanded the historical range of this
mussel (Williams et al. 2000, Blalock-Herod et al. 2005). In the Escambia watershed, it has now
been detected in rivers in Escambia County, Florida, and in Conecuh, Crenshaw, and Butler
counties in Alabama. In the Yellow River watershed, it has been detected in the main stem of the
Yellow River in Okaloosa County, Florida, and in Covington County, Alabama. In the
Choctawhatchee River watershed, it has been detected in the main channel of the Choctawhatchee
River in Washington and Holmes counties in Florida, and in Geneva County, Alabama (Williams
et al. 2000, Blalock-Herod et al. 2005).
Habitat:
The Choctaw Bean is found in large creeks and rivers with moderate current over sand to siltysand substrates (Deyrup and Franz 1994, Williams and Butler 1994).
Ecology:
Little is known about the ecology of the Choctaw Bean, but it is presumed to be a long-term
brooder. Gravid females have been detected in August. Fish hosts are unknown (Mirarchi et al.
2004).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are from 21-80 populations of Choctaw Bean, providing
the following details: "Johnson (1967) lists historical sites in: Choctawhatchee River SystemPea River drainage: Pea River, Alabama; Choctawhatchee River drainage: Florida. The Choctaw
bean appears to be extirpated from Murder Creek, Conecuh County; Pigeon Creek, Butler County;
and Little Patsaliga Creek, Crenshaw County, all Alabama, all Escambia River basin; and
Choctawhatchee River, Holmes County, Florida. Butler (1989) listed the following sites: Yellow
River mainstem, Alabama; east of Blackman, Florida. Butler (1989) also listed Escambia River
localities including Piegeon Creek, Alabama; Patsaliga River, Alabama; Little Patsaliga Creek,
Alabama. Due to recent status surveys the historical range of the Choctaw bean has been
expanded (Williams et al., 2000; Blalock-Herod et al., 2005). Within the Escambia River
drainage, it is known from the Escambia River, Escambia County, Florida; Murder Creek,
Conecuh County, Patsaliga and Little Patsaliga Creeks, Crenshaw County; and Pigeon Creek,
Butler County, all in Alabama. Within the Yellow River drainage, it is known from the main
channel Yellow River in Okaloosa County, Florida, and Covington County, Alabama. Within the
Choctawhatchee River drainage, the Choctaw bean is known from the Choctawhatchee River main
stem in Washington and Holmes Counties, Florida; and the Pea River, Geneva County, Alabama
(Williams et al., 2000; Blalock-Herod et al., 2005) (see USFWS, 2003; Butler, 1989). Recent
mussel status surveys found that populations (live and shell material only) of the Choctaw bean
have declined from 13 historic sites to 7 currently active sites, 4 inactive, and 2 with an
undetermined population status within the Escambia River drainage; it has declined from 6

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1127

 historic sites to 5 currently active sites and 1 with an undetermined population status within the
Yellow River drainage; and from 26 historic sites to 22 currently active sites, 1 inactive site, and
3 sites with undetermined population status within the Choctwhatchee River drainage (fide
Williams et al., 2000; Blalock-Herod et al., 2005). In totality, the Choctaw bean has declined
from a total of 45 historic sites to its remaining distribution of 34 sites. It has been extirpated
from approximately 11% of its historic range. An average of 2 individuals were found live per site
(fide Williams et al., 2000; Blalock-Herod et al., 2005. Two gravid individuals have been
detected, but recent recruitment has not been confirmed (fide Williams et al., 2000). The
longterm viability of the Choctaw bean is questionable (see USFWS, 2003). Blalock-Herod et al.
(2005) listed it in 6 historical (found in 2 of 3 recently resurveyed) and 20 new sites in the
Choctawhatchee River drainage of Alabama (mostly) and Florida. Pilarczyk et al. (2006)
recorded recent collections (in 2004) of this species following surveys of 24 sites at three sites
in Alabama including West Fork Choctawhatchee River, Pea Creek, and East Fork
Choctawhatchee River compared to Patsaliga Creek, Yellow River, Pea River, Pea Creek, West
Fork Choctawhatchee River, Judy Creek, and East Fork Choctawhatchee River in surveys of the
same sites in the 1990s."
Total population size of Choctaw Bean is estimated at to be at least 2500 individuals. At the best
known site at the time in 1988, eleven per hour were collected (NatureServe 2008). This mussel
is known from fair numbers from most sites represented in museum lots. Heard (1975) considered it to
be rare in the Choctawhatchee River. Pilarczyk et al. (2006) found 31 live mussels in the West Fork
Choctawhatchee River, 10 live mussels in Pea Creek, and 3 live mussels in the East Fork
Choctawhatchee River. In 1990s surveys, an average of two live individuals were detected per site in
Patsaliga Creek, Yellow River, Pea River, Pea Creek, West Fork Choctawhatchee River, Judy Creek,
and the East Fork Choctawhatchee River (Blalock-Herod et al. 2005).
Population Trends:
The Choctaw Bean is declining in the short-term (decline of 10-30 percent) and moderately
declining to relatively stable in the long-term (NatureServe 2008). Recent status surveys indicate
that this species has experienced range reductions and occurs in low abundance within its limited
range. Overall, the Choctaw bean has declined from a total of 45 historic sites to its remaining
distribution of 34 sites. It has been extirpated from approximately 11 percent of its historic range
(USFWS 2003, NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Choctaw Bean as imperiled in Alabama and critically imperiled in
Florida. This mussel has a limited distribution, restricted habitat, decreasing number of extant
occurrences, and the viability of some occurrences is questionable (NatureServe 2008). It is a
Federal Candidate for protection under the Endangered Species Act. It is a Species of Greatest
Conservation Need in Alabama. It is ranked as threatened by the American Fisheries Society
(Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
The primary threat to the Choctaw Bean is habitat loss and degradation, with this mussel’s habitat
known to be deteriorating overall (NatureServe 2008). This species is threatened by
sedimentation and water quality degradation from a number of activities including highway and
reservoir construction, improper logging practices, agricultural runoff, housing developments,
pipeline crossings, and livestock grazing which cause physical disturbance to stream substrates
and riparian areas, and alter water quality, temperature, and flow (NatureServe 2008).
Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1128

 Sedimentation can cause direct mortality of mussels by suffocation and substrate alteration (Ellis
1936, Brim Box and Mossa 1999), can interfere with feeding (Dennis 1984), and can preclude or
reduce juvenile recruitment (Negus 1966, Brim Box and Mossa 1999). Many of the extant
populations of this mussel are in the vicinity of highway and unpaved road crossings, and highway
and bridge construction and widening could thus negatively impact these populations.
Impoundments and resulting changes in sediment, flow, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen
threaten mussel populations (Neves et al. 1997). Nutrients from agricultural fields, lawns,
feedlots, poultry operations, and leaking septic tanks cause eutrophication and reduced oxygen
levels in small streams which also threaten mussel populations (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately protect the Choctaw Bean, and no
occurrences are appropriately protected and managed. This species is a federal Candidate and
merits full ESA protection. It has no state status in Florida, and is a Species of Greatest
Conservation Need in Alabama, but this designation does not confer regulatory protection. One
occurrence may border the Conecuh National Forest, but this does not provide habitat protection.
NatureServe (2008) provides the following management recommendations for this species:
"Protect species by federal listing, acquisitions and easements by working with government
agencies and conservation organizations; establish buffers and streamside management zones for
all agricultural, silvicultural, mining, and developmental activities; propagate for reintroduction
into restored habitats; maintain high water and benthic habitat quality; control/eradicate Corbicula
populations. Conservation activities have been limited to working with private landowners in south
Alabama and west Florida to encourage the use of Best Management Practices to reduce the
effects of agriculture and silviculture (see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003)."
Other factors:
Several other factors threaten the Choctaw Bean. Any factor which degrades water quality or
negatively affects host fish populations is a threat to this mussel. This species is vulnerable to
catastrophic events because populations are generally small and geographically isolated. Some
populations may not be genetically viable in the long-term. Invasive species also potentially
threaten the Choctaw Bean, including the Asiatic clam, zebra mussel, and black carp (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2003, NatureServe 2008).
References:
Blalock-Herod, H.N., J.J. Herod, J.D. Williams, B.N. Wilson, and S.W. McGregor. 2005. A
historical and current perspective of the freshwater mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from the
Choctawhatchee River drainage in Alabama and Florida. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of
Natural History, 24: 1-26.
Brim Box, J. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and
problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 18(1): 99-117.
Butler, R.S. 1989. Distributional records for freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Florida
and south Alabama, with zoogeographic and taxonomic notes. Walkerana, 3(10): 239-261.
Dennis, S.D. 1984. Distributional analysis of the freshwater mussel fauna of the Tennessee River
system, with special reference to possible limiting effects of siltation. Ph.D. Thesis. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 247 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1129

 Deyrup, M., and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV: Invertebrates.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology, 17: 29-42.
Heard, W.H. 1979. Identification manual of the fresh water clams of Florida. State of Florida,
Department of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series, 4(2): 1-82.
Johnson, R.I. 1967. Additions to the Unionid fauna of the Gulf Drainage of Alabama, Georgia
and Florida (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Breviora, 270: 1-21.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Negus, C.L. 1966. A quantitative study of growth and production of unionid mussels in the River
Thames at Reading. Journal of Animal Ecology, 35: 513-532.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of aquatic
mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. Pages 43-85 in G.W.
Benz and D.E. Collins (eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: the Southeastern Perspective. Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Pilarczyk, M.M., P.M. Stewart, D.N. Shelton, H.N. Blalock-Herod, and J.D. Williams. 2006.
Current and Recent historical freshwater mussel assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains.
Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2): 205-226.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Candidate and listing priority assignment form:
Fusconaia rotulata, Ptychobranchus jonesi, Fusconaia escambia, Lampsilis australis, Pleurobema
strodeanum, Villosa choctawensis, Quincuncina burkei. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama
City Field Office, Panama. 20 pp.
Williams, J.D. and R.S. Butler. 1994. Class Bivalvia, Order Unionoida, freshwater bivalves.
Pages 53-128, 740-742 in M. Deyrup and R. Frantz (eds.) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
Volume 4. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.
Williams, J.D., H.N. Blalock, A. Benson, and D.N. Shelton. 2000. Distribution of the freshwater
mussel fauna (Bivalvia: Margaritiferidae and Unionidae) in the Escambia and Yellow river
drainages in southern Alabama and western Florida. Final Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Jacksonville, Florida. 61 pp.
Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993.
Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries, 18(9): 622.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1130

 Scientific Name:
Villosa fabalis
Common Name:
Rayed Bean
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
NE - Not evaluated

Range:
The rayed bean is present in Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Ontario. Current natural heritage records
indicate that the rayed bean is present in Alabama’s Lauderdale County, Indiana’s Allen, Carroll,
De Kalb, Johnson, Kosciusko, Pulaski, Tippecanoe, and White Counties, Michigan’s Hillsdale,
Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne Counties, and from New York’s Cattaraugus and Chautauqua
Counties. Though it was historically present in these locations, it is now considered extirpated
from Illinois’ Vermilion County, Indiana’s Delaware, Fulton, Hamilton, Huntington, LaGrange,
Marshall, Miami, Posey, and Wabash Counties, Kentucky’s Campbell, Gallatin, Grayson, Green,
Hardin, Hart, Kenton, Owen, Pendleton, Scott, Spencer, and Warren Counties, and from
Michigan’s Lenawee, Macomb, and Monroe Counties.
Habitat:
The rayed bean is primarily found in small headwater creeks near shoal or riffle areas, and also
occurs in the shallow areas of glacial lakes, including Lake Erie, where it is associated with
islands. It prefers gravel and sand substrates, and is often associated with aquatic vegetation such
as water willow Justicia americana, water milfoil, Myriophyllum spp., among whose roots it
commonly buries itself (Butler 2003, Watters 1988, Parmalee and Bogan 1998, Watters et al.
2000).
Ecology:
This species is reportedly a long-term breeder, retaining glochidia over the winter and releasing
them in the spring. The only confirmed glochidial host is the Tippecanoe darter, Etheostoma
tippecanoe, which is itself imperiled (Strayer and Jirka 1997, Butler 2003).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) estimates that there are 21-80 occurrences of rayed bean. This once
widespread species is now llimited to ten streams in the lower Great Lakes system, and twelve
streams and one lake in the Ohio River system. Total abundance is estimated at only 1000-2500
individuals. Its current distribution is highly fragmented, and remaining populations are generally
small and isolated.
Population Trends:
Over the long-term, the rayed bean has declined by over 75 percent. It has been extirpated from 78
percent of the total number of streams and other water bodies from which it was historically
known (22 streams and a lake currently compared to 106 water bodies historically) (NatureServe
2008). It is also very rapidly declining in the short-term, by up to 70 percent (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) reports that the rayed bean is critically imperiled in Indiana, Michigan, New
York, Ohio, Ontario, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania, and likely extirpated from Alabama, Illinois,
Kentucky, and Virginia. It is listed as endangered in New York, Ohio, and Virginia, and in Canada.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1131

 It is a federal candidate in dire need of ESA protection to ensure its survival. Its rank is being
changed from special concern (Williams et al. 1993) to endangered by the American Fisheries
Society (2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
Loss and degradation of habitat is the greatest threat to the rayed bean. Known threats to this
mussel include impoundments, channelization, dredging, mining, agriculture, logging, and
residential and industrial development (Williams et al., 1993; Neves, 1993; Neves et al., 1997;
Watters, 2000). NatureServe (2008) states, “The threats to the rayed bean are significant and
present throughout the species range, and thus are high in magnitude. Threats to the remaining
populations are imminent and will likely not lessen in the future (Butler, 2003; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2003).”
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is listed as endangered in New York, Ohio, and Virginia, this designation affords the
rayed bean no substantial regulatory protection. No existing regulatory mechanisms adequately
protect this species or its habitat.
Other factors:
The rayed bean is threatened by point and non-point source pollution from many sources including
industrial and residential discharge, siltation, herbicide and fertilizer run-off, and agricultural
runoff and sewage discharge. Lowered dissolved oxygen levels and elevated ammonia levels are
known to be lethal to some species of freshwater naiads (Horne and McIntosh 1979). Rotenone, a
toxin used to kill undesired fish, can also kill mussels (Heard 1970). The rayed bean is also
threatened by contaminants from mine runoff and other sources (NatureServe 2008).
In some parts of its range, this mussel is threatened by invasive species such as Asiatic clam, zebra
mussel, and black carp. The rayed bean is also threatened by stochastic genetic and environmental
events due to the geographic and genetic isolation of most extant populations (NatureServe 2008).
References:
Heard, W.H. 1970. Eastern freshwater mollusks. 1. The south Atlantic and Gulf drainages. In:
A.H. Clarke (ed.) Rare and endangered molluscs of North America. Malacologia, 10: 1-56.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
October 20, 2009).
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
Strayer, D.L. and K.J. Jirka. 1997. The pearly mussels of New York state. New York State
Museum Memoir 26. The University of the State of New York. 113 pp. + figures
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Candidate assessment and listing priority

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1132

 assignment form: Villosa fabalis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ohio Field Office,
Reynoldsburg, Ohio. 23 pp.
Watters, G.T. 1988. A survey of the freshwater mussels of the St. Joseph River system, with
emphasis on the federally endangered white cat's paw pearly mussel. Unpublished report, Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, West Lafayette, Indiana. 127 pp.
Watters, G.T. 2000. Freshwater mussels and water quality: a review of the effects of hydrologic
and instream habitat alterations. Pages 261-274 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Watters,
B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings.
Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 274 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1133

 Scientific Name:
Villosa nebulosa
Common Name:
Alabama Rainbow
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G3
Threatened
Range:
The Alabama Rainbow occurs in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. In Alabama it
occurs in the Mobile Basin in small streams upstream of the Fall Line (Mirarchi 2004). It does
not occur in the Tallapoosa River system (Williams et al. 2008). Historically, this mussel was
widespread in the Black Warrior, Cahaba, and Coosa River drainages above the Fall Line, but is
now extant only in a few isolated tributary populations, including scattered tributaries of the
Coosa and the headwaters of Sipsey Fork in the Bankhead National Forest (Williams et al. 2008).
Johnson et al. (2005) report extant populations from the Conasauga River inside and adjacent to
the Cherokee and Chattahoochee National Forests in Polk and Bradley counties in Tennessee, and
in Murray County, Georgia. Johnson and Ahlstedt (2005) report this species from the Luxapallila
drainage on the Mississippi/Alabama border. Parmalee and Bogan (1998) tentatively restrict the
use of Villosa nebulosa to the species occurring in the headwaters of the Mobile Bay Basin,
including the Conasauga River in the southeastern part of Tennessee.
Habitat:
NatureServe (2008) states that this mussel inhabits riffles in areas of moderate current with sand
and gravel substrate. USFS (2007) states that the Alabama Rainbow primarily inhabits small
headwater streams and likely requires clean gravel riffles, low turbidity, some flow, and habitat
stability including substrate stability and water quality.
Ecology:
Haag and Warren (1997) found gravid females with mature glochidia from late February to early
April in 8-13 degree C water. They identified the following fish hosts for V. nebulosa in the
laboratory: Lepomis megalotis, Micropterus coosae, M. punctulatus, and M. salmoides.
Populations:
There are an estimated 21-80 populations of Alabama Rainbow (NatureServe 2008). It was
historically widespread in the Black Warrior, Cahaba, and Coosa River drainages above the Fall
Line, but survives in only a few isolated tributary populations (Williams et al. 2008). McGregor
et. al (2000) report this species as absent from the Cahaba. Few live individuals have been
reported recently in the Coosa Basin (Williams and Hughes 1998), with the exception of the
Conasauga where it was recently detected (Johnson et al. 2005). A population was recently
reported in the Luxapallila drainage on the border of Alabama and Mississippi (Johnson and
Ahlstedt 2005). Total population size for this species is estimated at more than one million
individuals.
Population Trends:
The Alabama Rainbow is considered to be stable in the short-term and relatively stable in the
long-term (NatureServe 2008). Few live individuals have been recently reported from Georgia,
except from the Conasauga River. It is absent from the Cahaba River in Alabama (NatureServe
2008). In the Alabama and Mobile Basin where it was once widespread, it is now extant only in a
few isolated populations (Williams et al. 2008).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1134

 Status:
The Alabama Rainbow is ranked by NatureServe as imperiled in Tennessee and Georgia,
vulnerable in Alabama, and not assessed in North Carolina. This mussel has a somewhat narrow
range and is frequently uncommon to rare at any given locality. In 1993, the American Fisheries
Society classified this mussel as threatened (Williams et al.), but its status is being changed to
endangered (draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
The Alabama Rainbow is threatened by impoundment; channelization and dredging operations;
sedimentation from agriculture, silviculture, mining, urbanization, road construction, and land-use
activities; and water withdrawals (Neves et al. 1997, Herrig and Shute 2002, NatureServe 2008).
This species was extirpated from much of its habitat by impoundment (Williams et al. 2008).
USFS (2007) states that the Alabama Rainbow is sensitive to water quality degradation and
sedimentation from ground-disturbing activities within a watershed. This species occurs in the
Bankhead National Forest and is thus potentially threatened by silvicultural and recreational
activities.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the Alabama Rainbow. It does not have
protective status in any state. NatureServe (2008) reports that few occurrences of this species are
appropriately protected and managed, stating that this mussel occurs in the Conasauga River inside
and adjacent to the Cherokee and Chattahoochee National Forests in Polk and Bradley Cos.,
Tennessee, and Murray Co., Georgia (Johnson et al., 2005). Occurrence in a National Forest does
not necessarily provide this mussel with habitat protection, and potentially places it at risk from
habitat degradation due to silvicultural and recreational activities.
Other factors:
Other factors which threaten the Alabama Rainbow include degraded water quality and invasive
species. Because the Alabama Rainbow is a filter feeder, it is highly susceptible to poor water
quality. The Alabama Rainbow is threatened by petroleum spills; pesticide and nutrient run-off
from agriculture, silviculture, and urban areas; chemical, manufacturing, and wood product wastes,
industrial discharges; and highway salts (Abell et al. 2000, Hart and Fuller 1974, Neves et al. 1997,
Herrig and Shute 2002). Herrig and Shute (2002) state that exotic mussel species, such as Asian
clams and zebra mussels, directly compete with native mussels for food and space, attach to native
mussels in large enough numbers to cause mortality, and accumulate in such high numbers that
they can modify the physical characteristics of the substrate and water quality. The Alabama
Rainbow is also threatened by any factor which threatens the host fish on which it is dependent for
reproduction. Increasing population isolation (Williams et al. 2008) heightens the susceptibility of
this species to extirpation from stochastic genetic and environmental events.
References:
Abell, Robin A.; Olson, David M.; Dinerstein, Eric [and others]. 2000. Freshwater ecoregions of
North America: a conservation assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. 319 p.
Haag, W. R., and M. L. Warren, Jr. 1997. Host fishes and reproductive biology of 6 freshwater
mussel species from the Mobile Basin, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society, 16(3): 576-585.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1135

 Hart, C.W., Jr.; and S.L.H. Fuller. 1974. Pollution ecology of freshwater invertebrates. New
York: Academic Press. 312 p.
Herrig, J. and P. Shute. 2002. Chapter 23: aquatic animals and their habitats. Southern Region,
USDA Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority. 45 pp. In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G.,
eds. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 pp. Available at:
www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/pdf/chapter_23e.pdf Last accessed June 8, 2009.
Johnson, P.D. and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2005. Results of a brief survey for freshwater mussels in the
Yellow Creek Watershed, Lowndes County, Mississippi and Lamar and Fayette Counties,
Alabama. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama. Unpainated.
Johnson, P.D., C. St. Aubin, and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2005. Freshwater mussel survey results for the
Cherokee and Chattahoochee districts of the United States Forest Service in Tennessee and
Georgia. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama. 32 pp.
McGregor, S.W., P.E. O'Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) fauna of the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11(26): 215-237.
Mirarchi, R.E. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume One: A Checklist of Vertebrates and Selected
Invertebrates: Aquatic Mollusks, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. University
of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pp.
Neves, R. J., A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams, S. A. Ahlstedt, and P. W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of
aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: A downward spiral of diversity. In Aquatic
Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. G. W. Benz, and D. E. Collins (eds.). Special
Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design & Communications, Decatur,
GA, p. 43-86.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
Williams, J.D. and M.H. Hughes. 1998. Freshwater mussels of selected reaches of the main
channel rivers in the Coosa drainage of Georgia. U.S. Geological report to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District, Alabama. 21 pp.
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the
Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
908 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1136

 Scientific Name:
Villosa ortmanni
Common Name:
Kentucky Creekshell
G Rank:
AFS Status:
G2
Special Concern

IUCN Status:
NE - Not evaluated

Range:
The range of the Kentucky Creekshell consists of 250-1000 square km in the Green River system
in Kentucky where it inhabits a few sites in the Green River and in a direct tributary, as well as a
limited number of tributaries of the Nolin, Rough, and Barren rivers, and peripheral sites which
support a smaller, chunkier form in the Nolin, Gasper, and Red Rivers. This species occurred
historically in Beaver Creek, but that population is likely extirpated (R. Cicerello, KY NHP, pers.
comm., 1998, cited in NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This mussel occurs in small, medium-sized, and large rivers with gravel, cobble, sand, or mud
substrate. In the Green River, this mussel was found in deep flowing riffles and runs with sand,
gravel, and some cobble substrate (Cicerello and Hannan 1990, Cicerello and Schuster 2003).
Populations:
There are fewer than 20 populations of this mussel represented by over 100 occurrences in
approximately 12 counties (R. Cicerello, pers. comm., 1998; KY NHP, pers. comm. 2007 cited
in NatureServe 2008). Total population size is unknown.
Population Trends:
Within its extremely limited range, this mussel is declining in the short-term and relatively stable
in the long-term. The Beaver Creek population is likely extirpated. The Kentucky State Nature
Preserves Commission (2006) reports this species as declining.
Status:
The Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (2006) lists this species as endangered. It is
ranked as imperiled by NatureServe (2008). It is ranked as special concern/vulnerable by the
American Fisheries Society (Williams et al. 1993, 2010 draft, in review).
Habitat destruction:
NatureServe (2008) lists threats to this species as pollution, dredging, channelization, and
quarrying, citing a personal communication from the Kentucky Natural Heritage Program (2007).
The Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (2006) lists this species as endangered, citing
habitat degradation and loss as the reason for this mussel's state status. Kentucky's
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005) reports that this mussel is threatened by
habitat degradation from gravel and sand removal and quarrying, stream channelization, and
agricultural runoff. Suitable habitat for this mussel is fragmented (NatureServe 2008).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect this mussel.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1137

 References:
Cicerello, R.R. and G.A. Schuster. 2003. A guide to the freshwater mussels of Kentucky.
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Scientific and Technical Series, 7: 1-62.
Cicerello, R.R. and R.R. Hannan. 1990. Survey of the freshwater unionids (mussels) (Bivalvia:
Margaritiferidae and Unionidae) in the Green River in Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky.
Technical Report, Mammoth Cave National Park.
Cicerello, R.R., M.L. Warren, Jr., and G.A. Schuster. 1991. A distributional checklist of the
freshwater unionids (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) of Kentucky. American Malacological Bulletin, 8(2):
113-129.
Kentucky's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 2005. Kentucky Department of Fish
and Wildlife Resources, #1 Sportsman's Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. Accessed Jan. 27,
2010 at: http://www.kdfwr.state.ky.us/kfwis/stwg/Volume%20II/Bivalvia/Bivalvia.htm#199

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1138

 Scientific Name:
Villosa umbrans
Common Name:
Coosa Creekshell
G Rank:
AFS Status:
T2
Special Concern
Range:
Formerly known as Villosa vanuxemensis umbrans, the range of the Coosa Creekshell covers 100-250
square km (about 40-100 square miles) in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. It is endemic to the upper
Coosa River system occurring in the Conasauga River of the Coosa River basin in Polk Co. (Parmalee
and Bogan 1998). This species was once fairly widespread, but now likely persists only in a few
tributarires in the uppermost reaches of the system, primarily in Georgia (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
McGregor et al. (2000) reported this species as absent from the Cahaba River, Alabama (NatureServe
2008). Williams et al. (2008) report that this mussel is known only from the Coosa River drainage above
the Fall Line.
Habitat:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) describe the Coosa Creekshell's habitat as "creeks and small rivers,
generally in gravel and sand substrata in shoal and riffle habitats, sometimes associated with water
willow (Justicia americana) beds (Parmalee and Bogan 1998)." Williams et al. (2008) describe
this species' habitat as small to medium rivers in mixtures of sand, gravel, and cobble substrate in
moderate current.
Ecology:
The Coosa Creekshell is a long-term brooder. Known glochidial hosts include bluegill and banded
sculpin, with higher transformation rates on bluegill (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Populations:
NatureServe (2008) reports that there are from 6-20 populations of Coosa Creekshell. This
mussel appears to be in decline rangewide (Mirarchi et al. 2004). It persists in the Coosa River
drainage in Georgia, and might be extant in the Coosa in Alabama. In the Coosa River basin in
Georgia, it is known historically from the Coosa, Etowah, Oostanaula, Conasauga, and
Coosawattee River drainages (Williams and Hughes 1998). This species was recently reported
from the Conasauga River inside and adjacent to the Cherokee and Chattahoochee National
Forests, Polk and Bradley Cos., Tennessee, and Murray/Whitfield Cos., Georgia; as well as Holly
Creek, adjacent to the Chattahoochee National Forest, Murray Co., Georgia (Johnson et al. 2005).
McGregor et al. (2000) reported it absent from the Cahaba River, Alabama. Williams et al.
(2008) report that it is extant only in small isolated populations in Coosa tributaries.
Population Trends:
The Coosa Creekshell is very rapidly declining (decline of 50-75 percent) in the short-term, and
has also experienced a large long-term decline (decline of 75-90 percent). It appears to be in
decline rangewide (Mirarchi et al. 2004).
Status:
NatureServe (2008) ranks the Coosa Creekshell as critically imperiled in Georgia, and imperiled
in Alabama and Tennessee. This once widespread species now persists only in a few tributarires. It
is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama and Tennessee. Its rank is being changed

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1139

 from special concern (Williams et al. 1993) to threatened (2010 draft, in review) by the
American Fisheries Society.
Habitat destruction:
Mirarchi et al. (2004) state that specific habitat requirements make this species vulnerable to
extinction. Many factors contribute to the loss and degradation of mussel habitat in the region
where the Coosa Creekshell occurs. Flebbe et al. (1996) state: “The common factors affecting the
status of aquatic species populations in the Southern Appalachians are habitat degradation and
loss. Major threats to aquatic habitats and aquatic fauna include dams and the resulting reservoirs,
channelization, sedimentation, and mining. Point source pollution, such as industrial waste,
livestock feed lots, human sewage, and water treatment waste; and nonpoint source contaminants
like fertilizer, pesticides, septic system leakage, household chemical waste, roadwash residues,
and urban area runoff also contribute to the degradation and loss of aquatic resources.”
Swift et al. (1996) report that human activities which degrade mussel habitat in the Southern
Appalachians include the development of human habitation and service facilities at urban,
suburban, and rural sites; agricultural facilities and operations; construction, maintenance, and use
of roads and highways; mining and petroleum extraction and processing sites; industrial facilities;
water resources development; and forestry operations, with the majority of water quality
degradation resulting from nonpoint sources, such as agricultural runoff, stormwater discharges,
and landfill and mining leachate (Swift et al. 1996). The aquatic mollusk fauna in the Coosa River
system has been decimated by dams, with many species having been pushed into very small ranges
(Van der Schalie 1981, Neves et al. 1994, McDougal 1995 in Flebbe et al. 1996).
The Coosa Creekshell is declining on the Cherokee National Forest, where aquatic habitats have
experienced degradation from logging and off-highway vehicle use (USFS 2006).
The Biological Assessment for the Alabama Power Company Coosa River Relicensing Projects
states that the project is likely to adversely affect listed freshwater snails and mussels in the
Coosa River, and that mussels in the Coosa have declined due to habitat modification,
sedimentation, eutrophication, and water quality degradation (Alabama Power Company 2007).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
There are no existing regulatory mechanims that protect the Coosa Creekshell. It is a Species of
Greatest Conservation Need in Alabama and Tennessee, but this designation does not provide the
species with any regulatory protection. It has no state status in Georgia. It occurs in the Conasauga
River inside and adjacent to the Cherokee and Chattahoochee National Forests in Tennessee and
Georgia, but this does not necessarily confer any habitat protection (Johnson et al., 2005,
NatureServe 2008).
Other factors:
The Coosa Creekshell is threatened by any factor which degrades water quality or negatively
impacts host fish populations. This species is potentially threatened by invasive species. Flebbe et
al. (1996) state: “Introduced species, such as the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), will play a
major role in determining the composition and decline of native aquatic communities (in Southern
Appalachia) in the future. Industrial pollution and contaminants also threaten mussels in the region
where the Coosa Creekshell occurs (Swift et al. 1996, Flebbe et al. 1996). There is a PCB fish
consumption advisory for the Coosa River in Alabama and Georgia (Swift et al. 1996).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1140

 References:
Alabama Power Company. 2007. Biological Assessment for Threatened and Endangered Species
for the Coosa River (ferc no. 2146), Mitchell (ferc no. 82), and Jordan (ferc no. 618) Projects.
January 2007. 128 pp.
Flebbe, P.A., J. Harrison, G. Kappesser, D. Melgaard, J. Riley, and L.W. Swift Jr. 1996. Status of
Aquatic Resources: part 1 of 2, pp. 15-63. In Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere
(SAMAB). The Southern Appalachian Assessment Aquatics Technical Report. Report 2 of 5.
USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.
Johnson, P.D., C. St. Aubin, and S.A. Ahlstedt. 2005. Freshwater mussel survey results for the
Cherokee and Chattahoochee districts of the United States Forest Service in Tennessee and
Georgia. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, Alabama. 32 pp.
McGregor, S.W., P.E. O'Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 2000. Status of the freshwater mussel (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) fauna of the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11(26): 215-237.
Mirarchi, R. E., J. T. Garner, M. F. Mettee, and P.E. O'Neil. 2004. Alabama wildlife. Volume 2.
Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. xii +
255 pp.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. University of
Tennessee Press: Knoxville, Tennessee. 328 pp.
Swift, Lloyd W., Jr.; Flexner, Morris; Burns, Ridiarf; et al. 1996. Impacts of human activities. In:
Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). The Southern Appalachian Assessment
Aquatics Technical Report. Report 2 of 5. Atlanta, GA.: U.S. Department of Agriculture', Forest
Service, Southern Region: 89-120. Chapter 5.
U.S. Forest Service. 2006. 2005 Annual Monitoring & Evaluation Report Cherokee National
Forest. Last accessed Jan. 25, 2010 at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/cherokee/planning/mon_eval/ME092006.pdf
Williams, J.D. and M.H. Hughes. 1998. Freshwater mussels of selected reaches of the main
channel rivers in the Coosa drainage of Georgia. U.S. Geological report to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District, Alabama. 21 pp.
Williams, J.D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. 2008. Freshwater Mussels of Alabama and the
Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
908 pp.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1141

 Scientific Name:
Waldsteinia lobata
Common Name:
Lobed Barren-strawberry
G Rank:
G2
Range:
Also known as the Piedmont barren strawberry, this species is endemic to a small range within the
Piedmont and Blue Ridge Mountains of Georgia, adjoining areas of South Carolina, and Alabama.
Historic records indicate W. lobata was once present in North Carolina, but recent confirmation
is unavailable. This species is currently confirmed in Lee County, Alabama, Carroll, Dawson,
DeKalb, Douglas, Fulton, Gwinnett, Habersham, Heard, Morgan, Pickens, Stephens, Taylor,
Upson, and Wilkinson Counties, Georgia, and in Oconee County, South Carolina (NatureServe
2008, AL NHP 2008).
Habitat:
This strawberry is found in rocky, acidic woodlands along or above streams, and often forms part
of the layer of moss that forms in conditions of high humidity and shade. It often occurs with
Rhododendron spp. and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) (NatureServe 2008). More rarely it can
be found iin drier upland oak-hickory-pine woodlands (Patrick et al. 1995).
Ecology:
This perennial berry blooms in May and June.
Populations:
No reports of total number of occurrences or overall population size are available.
Population Trends:
This species is in decline (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This plant is endemic to a small range, declining, and threatened by numerous anthropogenic
factors. NatureServe (2008) ranks W. lobata as critically imperiled in Alabama and North
Carolina, imperiled in Georgia, and vulnerable in South Carolina. It is also listed as threatened in
Georgia.
Habitat destruction:
This species is threatened by habitat destruction, primarily caused by logging, which in addition to
outrightly destroying habitat, alters patterns of succession - weedy, fast-growing species favored
by forest clearing outcompete W. lobata and contribute to local extirpation. Threats are especially
severe on private lands (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002).
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
Though it is listed as threatened in Georgia, this designation affords W. lobata no significant
regulatory protection; no existing regulatory mechanisms adequately protect this species.
Other factors:
This plant is threatened in parts of its range by invasive exotics such as Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) (Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project 2002).

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1142

 References:
Alabama Natural Heritage Program (AL NHP). 2008. Annual report. Accessed online
December 16, 2009 <<www.alnhp.org/ann-rpt_2008.pdf >>
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:
August 11, 2009).
Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995. Protected plants of Georgia: an information
manual on plants designated by the State of Georgia as endangered, threatened, rare, or unusual.
Georgia Dept. Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Natural Heritage
Program, Social Circle, Georgia. 218 pp + appendices.
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1143

 Scientific Name:
Xyris longisepala
Common Name:
Kral's Yellow-eyed-grass
G Rank:
G2
Range:
This plant is endemic to a small range in the Florida panhandle and adjacent areas of Alabama.
Most documented occurrences are from Washington and Bay Counties, Florida, but natural
heritage records also show this species to be present in Leon and Okaloosa Counties, Florida, and
in Covington County, Alabama (NatureServe 2008).
Habitat:
This grass is found on the moist or wet sandy shores of limesink lakes, sandhill upland lakes, and
sinkhole ponds (Kral 1983). It occurs amongst other shrubby vegetation, though under suitable
conditions, X. longisepala may form dense or more extensive meadows (NatureServe 2008).
Ecology:
This grass germinates easily during periods of low water, and may then become abundant at the
waterline. It flowers July-November (NatureServe 2008).
Populations:
There seems to be no strong consensus on the the total number of occurrences of this species
across its range, but certainly fewer than 100 are known, and there are probably fewer than 50.
The vast majority of these populations are in Florida; only 2 occurrences are currently
documented in Alabama (NatureServe 2008).
Population Trends:
Populations are in decline across this species' range, particularly in Alabama (NatureServe 2008).
Status:
This grass is restricted to a small range within which it is declining. Habitat specificity makes it
highly sensitive to the loss of habitat. NatureServe (2008) ranks this species as critically
imperiled in both Alabama and Florida. It is also listed as endangered in Florida.
Habitat destruction:
This species is threatened by a variety of anthropogenic factors that destroy and degrade habitat:
conversion of habitat to residential developments, silvicultural plantations, or agricultural fields
or pasture are the primary causes of outright habitat destruction, but negative ecological effects
emanate from these land uses to degrade peripheral habitat through sedimentation, pollution, and
dispersed human activity. Recreational ORV use on or near pond shores destroys habitat and/or
individual plants, and is reportedly a significant threat to X. longisepala in some parts of its range
(NatureServe 2008). Very restrictive habitat preferences limit this species' ability to recover
from habitat loss.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms:
This species occurs in the Apalachicola National Forest and on the Eglin Air Force Base, but these
sites not be adequately protected from human disturbance. Though it is listed as endangered in
Florida, this designation offers X. longisepala no significant regulatory protections; no existing

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1144

 regulatory mechanisms sufficiently address the protection of this species or its habitat.
References:
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest-related vascular plants of
the South. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Technical Publication R8-TP2, Athens, GA.
1305 pp.
NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed
December 16, 2009.
Southern Appalachian Species Viability Project. 2002. A partnership between the U.S. Forest
Service-Region 8, Natural Heritage Programs in the Southeast, NatureServe, and independent
scientists to develop and review data on 1300+ regionally and locally rare species in the
Southern Appalachian and Alabama region. Database (Access 97) provided to the U.S. Forest
Service by NatureServe, Durham, North Carolina.

Southeast Aquatic Species Petition 1145