Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 404 Species in the Southeastern United States as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat, 59836-59862 [2011-24633]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59836-59862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24633]



[[Page 59835]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 187

September 27, 2011

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 59836]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2011-0049; MO 92210-0-0009]


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
partial 90-day finding on a petition to list 404 species in the 
southeastern United States as endangered or threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, 
we find that for 374 of the 404 species, the petition presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this 
notice, we are initiating a status review of the 374 species to 
determine if listing is warranted. To ensure that the review is 
comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information 
regarding these 374 species. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 
12-month findings on the petition, which will address whether the 
petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of 
the Act. Of the 30 other species in the petition, 1 species--Alabama 
shad--has had a 90-day finding published by the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, and 18 species are already on the Service's list of 
candidate species or are presently the subject of proposed rules to 
list. We have not yet made a finding on the remaining 11 species, but 
anticipate doing so no later than September 30, 2011.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct a status review, we request 
that we receive information on or before November 28, 2011. The 
deadline for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern 
Standard Time on this date. After November 28, 2011, you must submit 
information directly to the Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note that we may not be able 
to address or incorporate information that we receive after the above 
requested date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2011-0049, which is the docket number for this action. Then 
click on the Search button.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2011-0049; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all information 
received on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we 
will post any personal information you provide us (see Request for 
Information section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Mizzi, Chief, Division of 
Endangered Species, Ecological Services, Southeast Regional Office, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30345; 
by telephone at 404-679-7169; or by facsimile at 404-679-7081. If you 
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the 
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Information

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial 
information indicating that a species may be warranted for listing, we 
are required to promptly review the status of the species (status 
review). For the status reviews to be complete and based on the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we request information 
on the 374 species from governmental agencies, Native American tribes, 
the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties 
concerning the status of the species. We seek information on:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    (3) The potential effects of climate change on the species and 
their habitat.
    If, after the status review, we determine that listing any of these 
species is warranted, it is our intent to propose critical habitat 
under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we 
also request data and information on:
    (1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range 
currently occupied by the species;
    (2) Where these features are currently found;
    (3) Whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection;
    (4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species that are ``essential for the conservation of the species;'' and
    (5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for 
designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such 
habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles, other supporting publications, or data) to 
allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you 
include.
    Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action 
under consideration without providing supporting information, although 
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any 
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your information concerning the status reviews or 
the 404 species by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. 
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
submission--including any personal

[[Page 59837]]

identifying information--will be posted on the Web site. If your 
submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying 
information, you may request at the top of your document that we 
withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot 
guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy 
submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used 
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, 
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Ecological Services 
Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

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

Petition History

    On April 20, 2010, we received, via electronic mail, a petition 
from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers 
Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, 
Tennessee Forests Council, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Tierra 
Curry, and Noah Greenwald (referred to below as the CBD petition) to 
list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species from the southeastern 
United States as endangered or threatened species and to designate 
critical habitat concurrent with listing under the Act. The petition 
clearly identified itself as a petition, was dated, and included the 
identification information required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). On April 21, 
2010, via electronic mail to Noah Greenwald at CBD, we acknowledged 
receipt of the petition. On May 10, 2010, the Southeast Region of the 
Service, to which the petition had been assigned, provided additional 
formal written acknowledgement of receipt of the petition.
    The petitioners developed an initial list of species by searching 
NatureServe for species that ``occur in the twelve states typically 
considered the Southeast, occur in aquatic, riparian, or wetland 
habitats and appeared to be imperiled.'' Species were considered 
imperiled if they were classified as G1 or G2 by NatureServe, near 
threatened or worse by the International Union for Conservation of 
Nature (IUCN), or a species of concern, threatened, or endangered by 
the American Fisheries Society.
    NatureServe conservation status ranks range from critically 
imperiled (1) to demonstrably secure (5). Status is assessed and 
documented at three distinct geographic scales: Global (G), national 
(N), and subnational (S) (i.e., state/province/municipal). Subspecies 
are similarly assessed with a subspecific (T) numerical assignment. 
Assessment by NatureServe of any species as being critically imperiled 
(G1), imperiled (G2), or vulnerable (G3) does not constitute a 
recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the Act. NatureServe 
status assessment procedures have different criteria, evidence 
requirements, purposes, and taxonomic coverage than government lists of 
endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of 
lists should not be expected to coincide. For example, an important 
factor in many legal listing processes is the extent to which a species 
is already receiving protection of some type--a consideration not 
included in the NatureServe conservation status ranks. Similarly, the 
IUCN and American Fisheries Society do not apply the same criteria to 
their ranking determinations as those encompassed in the Act and its 
implementing regulations.
    On May 7, 2010, the Service received correspondence from the 
Southeastern Fishes Council, dated May 2, 2010, with an explanation of 
its involvement in formulation of the petition. The Council was 
contacted by CBD, which solicited the Council's involvement in the 
preparation of the subject petition. The Southeastern Fishes Council's 
members provided expertise in review of the CBD's list of fishes in the 
draft petition.
    On May 27, 2010, the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 
submitted a letter to the Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Southeast Region, in support of the CBD petition's inclusion of a large 
number of freshwater mollusks. On September 1, 2010, and again on 
October 1, 2010, CBD forwarded to the Regional Director, Service, 
Southeast Region, a letter of support for the subject petition from 35 
conservation organizations.
    The CBD submitted supplemental comments and information on October 
6, 2010, in support of protecting the Panama City crayfish (Procambarus 
econfinae) under the Act. On December 13, 2010, we received a second 
petition, from Wild South, to list the Carolina hemlock (Tsuga 
caroliniana), as endangered and to designate its critical habitat. We 
acknowledged receipt of the petition in a letter dated December 20, 
2010, and identified it as a second petition for the same species' as 
Tsuga caroliniana was one of the species identified in the CBD 
petition.
    The CBD petition included 404 species for which the petitioners 
requested listing as endangered or threatened under the Act, and 
designation of critical habitat concurrent with the listing. It is our 
practice to evaluate all species petitioned for listing for the 
potential need to emergency list the species under the emergency 
provisions of the Act at section 4(b)(7) and as outlined at 50 CFR 
424.20. We have carefully considered the information provided in the 
petition and in our files and have determined that emergency listing is 
not indicated for any of the 404 species in the petition.
    The petition included 18 species that were already on the Service's 
list of candidate species at the time of receipt of the petition, 
including five that have since been proposed to be listed as 
endangered. A candidate species is one for which we have on file 
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to 
support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which 
preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher 
priority listing actions. We may identify a species as a candidate for 
listing based on an evaluation of its status that we conducted on our 
own initiative, or as a result of making a finding on a petition to 
list a species that listing is warranted but precluded by other higher 
priority listing actions. Of the 404 species that are the subjects of 
the petition, 18 had already been placed on the candidate list as a 
result of our own review and evaluation. These include: sicklefin 
redhorse (Moxostoma sp. 2 (the

[[Page 59838]]

2 refers to one of two species within the genus that have not yet been 
officially classified)), laurel dace (Phoxinus saylori) ((currently 
proposed for listing as endangered (June 24, 2011; 75 FR 36035)), 
spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) ((currently proposed for listing 
as endangered (January 19, 2011; 76 FR 3392)), narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia 
escambia), round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata), southern sandshell 
(Hamiota australis), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus) ((currently 
proposed for listing as endangered (January 19, 2011; 76 FR 3392)), 
fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum), southern kidneyshell 
(Ptychobranchus jonesi), rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), 
tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei), Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis), 
rayed bean (Villosa fabalis) ((currently proposed for listing as 
endangered (November 2, 2010; 75 FR 67552)), black mudalia (Elimia 
melanoides), Coleman cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis), 
Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis), and Yadkin River 
goldenrod (Solidago plumosa). We proposed to list the snuffbox 
(Epioblasma triquetra) as endangered on November 2, 2010 (75 FR 67552).
    We conduct a review of all candidate species annually to ensure 
that a proposed listing is justified for each species, and reevaluate 
the relative listing priority number assigned to each species. We also 
evaluate the need to emergency list any of these species, particularly 
species with high priorities. Through this annual review we also add 
new candidate species and remove those that no longer warrant listing. 
This review and reevaluation ensure that we focus conservation efforts 
on those species at greatest risk first.
    Because we have already made the equivalent of a 90-day and a 12-
month finding on the species listed above, and they have already been 
identified as warranting listing, including five that we have proposed 
to list as endangered, we find the petition provides substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that these species may 
be warranted for listing.
    The CBD petition includes one species, the Alabama shad (Alosa 
alabamae), that falls under the jurisdiction of the NMFS. According to 
the 1974 Memorandum of Understanding regarding jurisdictional 
responsibilities and listing procedures between the Service and NMFS, 
the NMFS has jurisdiction over species which either (1) Reside the 
majority portion of their lifetimes in marine waters, or (2) are 
species which spend part of their lifetimes in estuarine waters, if the 
majority portion of the remaining time (the time which is not spent in 
estuarine waters) is spent in marine waters. Based on this definition, 
NMFS has jurisdiction for the Alabama shad, and, accordingly, NMFS 
provided a letter to the Service, dated April 30, 2010, proposing to 
evaluate the subject petition, for the Alabama shad only, for the 
purpose of the 90-day finding and any required subsequent listing 
action. The NMFS published the 90-day finding for the Alabama shad on 
February 17, 2011 (76 FR 9320), and in that document announced its 
finding that the petition did not present substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for the 
Alabama shad.

Previous Federal Actions

    A large number of the petitioned species have previously been 
considered for listing under the Act and were at one time or another 
assigned status as a category 1, 2, or 3C candidate species. A category 
1 candidate species was one for which the Service had substantial 
information on hand to support the biological appropriateness of 
proposing to list as endangered or threatened, and for which 
development and publication of such a proposal was anticipated. A 
category 2 candidate species was one for which there was some evidence 
of vulnerability, but for which additional biological information was 
needed to support a proposed rule to list as endangered or threatened. 
A category 3C candidate was one that was proven to be more widespread 
than was previously believed and/or those that were not subject to any 
identifiable threats. These categories were discontinued in 1996 
(December 5, 1996; 61 FR 64481) in favor of maintaining a list that 
only represented those species for which we have on file sufficient 
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a 
proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation 
and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing 
actions.
    The Service was previously petitioned to list two of the subject 
petitioned species, the Say's spiketail dragonfly (February 15, 1994) 
and the orangefin madtom (October 6, 1983), as endangered species. We 
published 90-day findings for Say's spiketail dragonfly on October 26, 
1994 (59 FR 53776), and the orangefin madtom on January 16, 1984 (49 FR 
1919), respectively, and 12-month findings on July 17, 1995 (60 FR 
36380), and July 18, 1985 (50 FR 29238), respectively. Similarly, we 
previously proposed to list as endangered the Barrens topminnow 
(December 30, 1977; 42 FR 65209). However, that proposal was never 
finalized.

                  Table 1--Previous Federal Register Notices Addressing the Petitioned Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               FR Citation                      Publication date                         Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74 FR 57804.............................  11/9/2009..................  Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
                                                                        Plants (ETWP): Review of Native Species
                                                                        That Are Candidates for Listing as
                                                                        Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice
                                                                        on Findings on Resubmitted Petitions;
                                                                        Annual Description of Progress on
                                                                        Listing Actions; Proposed Rule.
61 FR 64481.............................  12/5/1996..................  ETWP; Notice of Final Decision on
                                                                        Identification of Candidates for Listing
                                                                        as Endangered or Threatened.
61 FR 7596..............................  02/28/1996.................  ETWP; Review of Plant and Animal Taxa
                                                                        That Are Candidates for Listing as
                                                                        Endangered or Threatened Species;
                                                                        Proposed Rule.
60 FR 36380.............................  7/17/1995..................  ETWP; 12-Month Finding for a Petition To
                                                                        List the Say's Spiketail Dragonfly as
                                                                        Endangered.
59 FR 58982.............................  11/15/1994.................  ETWP; Animal Candidate Review for Listing
                                                                        as Endangered or Threatened Species;
                                                                        Notice of Review.
59 FR 53776.............................  10/26/1994.................  ETWP; 90-Day Finding for a Petition To
                                                                        List the Say's Spiketail Dragonfly as
                                                                        Endangered.
58 FR 51144.............................  9/30/1993..................  ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as
                                                                        Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice
                                                                        of Review.
56 FR 58664.............................  11/21/1991.................  ETWP; Annual Description of Progress on
                                                                        Listing Actions and Findings on Recycled
                                                                        Petitions.
56 FR 58804.............................  11/21/1991.................  ETWP; Review of Animal Taxa for Listing
                                                                        as Endangered or Threatened Species;
                                                                        Notice of Review.
55 FR 17475.............................  4/25/1990..................  ETWP; Annual Description of Progress on
                                                                        Listing Actions and Findings on Recycled
                                                                        Petitions.

[[Page 59839]]

 
55 FR 6184..............................  2/21/1990..................  ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as
                                                                        Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice
                                                                        of Review.
54 FR 554...............................  1/6/1989...................  ETWP; Review of Animal Taxa for Listing
                                                                        as Endangered or Threatened Species;
                                                                        Notice of Review.
53 FR 52746.............................  12/29/1988.................  ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
                                                                        Description of Progress on Listing
                                                                        Actions.
53 FR 25511.............................  7/7/1988...................  ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
                                                                        Description of Progress on Listing
                                                                        Actions.
52 FR 24312.............................  6/30/1987..................  ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
                                                                        Description of Progress on Listing
                                                                        Actions.
51 FR 996...............................  1/09/1986..................  ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
                                                                        Description of Progress on Listing
                                                                        Actions.
50 FR 39526.............................  9/27/1985..................  ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as
                                                                        Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice
                                                                        of Review.
50 FR 37958.............................  9/18/1985..................  ETWP; Review of Vertebrate Wildlife.
50 FR 29238.............................  7/18/1985..................  12-Month Finding on a Petition To List
                                                                        the Orangefin Madtom.
50 FR 19761.............................  5/10/1985..................  ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
                                                                        Description of Progress on Listing
                                                                        Actions.
49 FR 21664.............................  5/22/1984..................  ETWP; Review of Invertebrate Wildlife for
                                                                        Listing as Endangered or Threatened
                                                                        Species.
49 FR 2485..............................  1/20/1984..................  ETWP; Findings on Pending Petitions and
                                                                        Description of Progress on Listing
                                                                        Actions.
49 FR 1919..............................  1/16/1984..................  ETWP; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To
                                                                        List the Orangefin Madtom.
48 FR 53640.............................  11/28/1983.................  ETWP; Supplement to Review of Plant Taxa
                                                                        for Listing as Endangered or Threatened
                                                                        Species.
47 FR 58454.............................  12/30/1982.................  ETWP; Review of Vertebrate Wildlife for
                                                                        Listing as Endangered or Threatened
                                                                        Species; Notice of Review.
45 FR 82480.............................  12/15/1980.................  ETWP; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as
                                                                        Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice
                                                                        of Review.
44 FR 70796.............................  12/10/1979.................  ETWP; Notice of Withdrawal of That
                                                                        Portion of Our June 16, 1976, Proposed
                                                                        Rule That Has Not Yet Been Finalized.
44 FR 44418.............................  7/27/1979..................  ETWP; Reproposal of Critical Habitat for
                                                                        the Barrens Topminnow.
44 FR 12382.............................  3/6/1979...................  ETWP; Withdrawal of Proposed Critical
                                                                        Habitat for the Barrens Topminnow.
43 FR 21702.............................  5/19/1978..................  ETWP; Proposed Endangered Status and
                                                                        Critical Habitat for Two Species of
                                                                        Turtles (Key Mud Turtle and Plymouth Red-
                                                                        bellied Turtle).
43 FR 17909.............................  4/26/1978..................  ETWP; Final Rule and Summary of General
                                                                        Comments Received in Response to a
                                                                        Proposal To List Some 1700 U.S. Vascular
                                                                        Plants.
42 FR 65209.............................  12/30/1977.................  ETWP; Proposed Endangered Status for the
                                                                        Barrens Topminnow.
41 FR 24524.............................  6/16/1976..................  ETWP; Proposed Endangered Status for Some
                                                                        1700 U.S. Vascular Plants.
40 FR 27824.............................  7/1/1975...................  Acceptance of Smithsonian Report As a
                                                                        Petition To List Taxa Named Therein
                                                                        Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
                                                                        Intention To Review the Status of Those
                                                                        Plants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Species Information

    The petition identified 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species 
from the southeastern United States as needing protection under the 
Act. This list included 15 amphibians, 6 amphipods, 18 beetles, 3 
birds, 4 butterflies, 9 caddisflies, 83 crayfish, 14 dragonflies, 48 
fish, 1 springfly, 1 fairy shrimp, 2 isopods, 4 mammals, 1 moth, 48 
mussels, 6 non-vascular plants, 13 reptiles, 44 snails, 8 stoneflies, 
and 76 vascular plants. Of these 404 species, 374 species are addressed 
in this finding (listed in Table 2 in the Summary of Threats as 
Identified in the Petition section below). We have not yet made a 
finding on the following 11 species: South Florida rainbow snake 
(Farancia erytrogramma seminola), Sarah's hydroptila caddisfly 
(Hydroptila sarahae), Rogue Creek hydroptila caddisfly (Hydroptila 
okaloosa), Florida brown checkered summer sedge (Polycentropus 
floridensis), Florida fairy shrimp (Dexteria floridana), Ouachita 
creekshell (Villosa arkansasensis), crystal darter (Crystallaria 
asprella), spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum), Florida bog frog 
(Rana okaloosae), Greensboro burrowing crayfish (Cambarus catagius), 
and Blood River crayfish (Orconectes burri).
    The nature of this petition finding, that is, the large number of 
species evaluated, necessitates our limiting a discussion of species 
information to a general one; only where there is a clarification 
necessary do we provide specific species information below.
    The petition identified 15 amphibians and requested that they be 
added to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List). 
Thirteen of these are subjects of this finding, including the 
following: Streamside salamander (Ambystoma barbouri), one-toed 
amphiuma (Amphiuma pholeter), hellbender (Cryptobranchus 
alleganiensis), Cumberland dusky salamander (Desmognathus abditus), 
seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus), Chamberlain's dwarf 
salamander (Eurycea chamberlaini), Oklahoma salamander (Eurycea 
tynerensis), Tennessee cave salamander (Gyrinophilus palleucus), West 
Virginia spring salamander (Gyrinophilus subterraneus), Georgia blind 
salamander (Eurycea wallacei, formerly known as, and identified by 
petitioners as, Haideotriton wallacei), Neuse River waterdog (Necturus 
lewisi), Gulf hammock dwarf siren (Pseudobranchus striatus 
lustricolus), and patch-nosed salamander (Urspelerpes brucei). The 
Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) is already on the 
Service's candidate species list. The seepage salamander, Oklahoma 
salamander, Tennessee cave salamander, West Virginia Spring salamander, 
Georgia blind salamander, Neuse River waterdog, hellbender, and Gulf 
hammock dwarf siren were previous C2 candidates for Federal listing, 
until that category was discontinued in 1996.
    Chamberlain's dwarf salamander is given a NatureServe global 
ranking of G5; however, its status in Georgia is S1, indicating it is 
considered critically imperiled in that State. The streamside 
salamander is given the G4 conservation status by NatureServe; however, 
it is considered critically imperiled (S1) in West Virginia, imperiled 
(S2) in Tennessee, and vulnerable (S3) in Indiana. The one-toed 
amphiuma maintains a global G3 ranking by NatureServe; however, it is 
also considered critically imperiled by NatureServe in Mississippi, 
Alabama,

[[Page 59840]]

and Georgia, and vulnerable in Florida. The Tennessee cave salamander 
maintains a NatureServe global ranking of G2 with State rankings of S2 
(AL and TN) and S1 (GA). The hellbender maintains a NatureServe global 
ranking of G3. Its State status ranges from S1 to S3. The subspecies 
bishopi, or Ozark hellbender, was proposed for Federal listing as 
endangered on September 8, 2010 (75 FR 54561). The Cumberland dusky 
salamander and Georgia blind salamander each have a NatureServe 
conservation status of imperiled (G2), with State rankings varying from 
possibly extirpated, to critically imperiled, to imperiled. The seepage 
salamander, Oklahoma salamander, and Neuse River waterdog each have a 
NatureServe global conservation ranking of G3, with individual State 
rankings of S1 to S3. The West Virginia spring salamander and patch-
nosed salamander each have a NatureServe conservation ranking of G1. 
The Gulf hammock dwarf siren is given a NatureServe global ranking of 
T1. The dwarf siren has not been documented since its description in 
1951.
    The petition identified six amphipods and requested that they be 
added to the List, including the following: Florida cave amphipod 
(Crangonyx grandimanus), Hobbs cave amphipod (Crangonyx hobbsi), 
Cooper's cave amphipod (Stygobromus cooperi), tidewater amphipod 
(Stygobromus indentatus), Morrison's cave amphipod (Stygobromus 
morrisoni), and minute cave amphipod (Stygobromus parvus).
    These six amphipods are each assigned a NatureServe Global ranking 
of either G2 or G3, indicating they are considered imperiled or 
vulnerable across their entire range. Cooper's cave amphipod, tidewater 
amphipod, Morrison's cave amphipod and the minute cave amphipod were 
each previous Service category 2 candidate species for listing (species 
for which there was some evidence of vulnerability, but for which 
additional biological information was needed to support a proposed rule 
to list as endangered or threatened).
    The petition identified 18 beetles and requested that they be added 
to the List. Seventeen of these are included in this finding, including 
the following: Cobblestone tiger beetle (Cincindela marginipennis), 
Avernus cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus avernus), Little Kennedy cave 
beetle (Pseudanophthalmus cordicollis), New River Valley cave beetle 
(Pseudanophthalmus egberti), Cumberland Gap cave beetle 
(Pseudanophthalmus hirsutus), Hubbard's cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus 
hubbardi), Hubricht's cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus hubrichti), 
Crossroad's cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus intersectus), Madden's cave 
beetle (Pseudanophthalmus limicola), Dry Fork Valley cave beetle 
(Pseudanophthalmus montanus), Natural Bridge cave beetle 
(Pseudanophthalmus pontis), South Branch Valley cave beetle 
(Pseudanophthalmus potomaca), overlooked cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus 
praetermissus), Saint Paul cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus sanctipauli), 
silken cave beetle (Pseudanophthalmus sericus), Thomas's cave beetle 
(Pseudanophthalmus thomasi), and Maiden Spring cave beetle 
(Pseudanophthalmus virginicus). The Coleman's cave beetle 
(Pseudanophthalmus colemanensis) is already a Federal candidate 
species.
    These cave beetles are locally endemic to small cave systems in 
Virginia, West Virginia, and Tennessee. Sixteen of them are afforded a 
NatureServe ranking of G1, with a population size of 1,000 or fewer, 
and many have not been documented since their description. One cave 
beetle, the South Branch Valley cave beetle, has a slightly wider range 
and is afforded a NatureServe ranking of G3. All of these beetles were 
previous category 2 candidates for Federal listing, until that category 
was discontinued in 1996.
    The petition identified three birds and requested that they be 
added to the List, including the following: MacGillivray's seaside 
sparrow (Ammodrammus maritimus macgillivraii), Florida sandhill crane 
(Grus canadensis pratensis), and black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis). 
MacGillivray's seaside sparrow and the Florida sandhill crane are given 
a NatureServe ranking of T2, while the black rail is more widely 
distributed and given a NatureServe ranking of G4. The black rail is a 
previous category 2 candidate species.
    The petition identified four butterflies and requested that they be 
added to the List, including the following: Linda's roadside-skipper 
(Amblyscirtes linda), Duke's skipper (Euphyes dukesi calhouni), Palatka 
skipper (Euphyes pilatka klotsi), and rare skipper (Problema bulenta). 
Linda's roadside skipper and the rare skipper are afforded a 
NatureServe ranking of G2. Duke's and Palatka's skippers are afforded 
NatureServe rankings of T2 and T1, respectively. The rare skipper was 
previously considered a category 2 candidate, until that category was 
discontinued by the Service in 1996.
    The petition identified nine caddisflies and requested that they be 
added to the List. Six of these are included in this finding, including 
the following: Logan's agarodes caddisfly (Agarodes logani), Sykora's 
hydroptila caddisfly (Hydroptila sykorae), Morse's little plain brown 
sedge (Lepidostoma morsei), little oecetis longhorn caddisfly (Oecetis 
parva), Setose cream and brown mottled microcaddisfly (Oxyethira 
setosa), and three-toothed triaenodes caddisfly (Triaenodes tridontus).
    Of these caddisflies, two are assigned a NatureServe ranking of G1, 
and four are assigned a G2. There is very little known about these 
species except that they appear to be very narrow endemics. The little 
oecetis longhorn caddisfly and three-toothed triaenodes caddisfly are 
previous category 2 candidate species.
    The petition identified 83 crayfish and requested that they be 
added to the List. Eighty-one of these are included in this finding: 
Bayou Bodcau crayfish (Bouchardina robisoni), Dougherty Plain cave 
crayfish (Cambarus cryptodytes), Obey crayfish (Cambarus obeyensis), 
cypress crayfish (Cambarellus blacki), least crayfish (Cambarellus 
diminutus), angular dwarf crawfish (Cambarellus lesliei), Big South 
Fork crayfish (Cambarus bouchardi), New River crayfish (Cambarus 
chasmodactylus), Chauga crayfish (Cambarus chaugaensis), Coosawattae 
crayfish (Cambarus coosawattae), slenderclaw crayfish (Cambarus 
cracens), Conasauga blue burrower (Cambarus cymatilis), Grandfather 
Mountain crayfish (Cambarus eeseeohensis), Elk River crayfish (Cambarus 
elkensis), Chickamauga crayfish (Cambarus extraneus), Etowah crayfish 
(Cambarus fasciatus), Little Tennessee crayfish (Cambarus georgiae), 
Piedmont blue burrower (Cambarus harti), spiny scale crayfish (Cambarus 
jezerinaci), Alabama cave crayfish (Cambarus jonesi), Greenbrier cave 
crayfish (Cambarus nerterius), Hiwassee headwater crayfish (Cambarus 
parrishi), pristine crayfish (Cambarus pristinus), Chattooga River 
crayfish (Cambarus scotti), beautiful crayfish (Cambarus speciosus), 
Broad River spiny crayfish (Cambarus spicatus), lean crayfish (Cambarus 
strigosus), blackbarred crayfish (Cambarus unestami), Big Sandy 
crayfish (Cambarus veteranus), Brawley's Fork crayfish (Cambarus 
williami), mimic crayfish (Distocambarus carlsoni), Broad River 
burrowing crayfish (Distocambarus devexus), Newberry burrowing crayfish 
(Distocambarus youngineri), burrowing bog crayfish (Fallicambarus 
burrisi), speckled burrowing crayfish

[[Page 59841]]

(Fallicambarus danielae), Jefferson County crayfish (Fallicambarus 
gilpini), Ouachita burrowing crayfish (Fallicambarus harpi), Hatchie 
burrowing crayfish (Fallicambarus hortoni), slenderwrist burrowing 
crayfish (Fallicambarus petilicarpus), Saline burrowing crayfish 
(Fallicambarus strawni), Crested riverlet crayfish (Hobbseus 
cristatus), Oktibbeha riverlet crayfish (Hobbseus orconectoides), 
Tombigbee riverlet crayfish (Hobbseus petilus), Yalobusha riverlet 
crayfish (Hobbseus yalobushensis), Calcasieu crayfish (Orconectes 
blacki), Coldwater crayfish (Orconectes eupunctus), Yazoo crayfish 
(Orconectes hartfieldi), Tennessee cave crayfish (Orconectes 
incomptus), Sucarnoochee River crayfish (Orconectes jonesi), Kisatchie 
painted crayfish (Orconectes maletae), Mammoth Spring crayfish 
(Orconectes marchandi), Appalachian cave crayfish (Orconectes 
packardi), Shelta cave crayfish (Orconectes sheltae), Chowanoke 
crayfish (Orconectes virginiensis), Hardin crayfish (Orconectes 
wrighti), Orlando cave crayfish (Procambarus acherontis), Coastal 
flatwoods crayfish (Procambarus apalachicolae), Silver Glen Springs 
crayfish (Procambarus attiguus), Jackson Prairie crayfish (Procambarus 
barbiger), Mississippi flatwoods crayfish (Procambarus cometes), 
bigcheek cave crayfish (Procambarus delicatus), Panama City crayfish 
(Procambarus econfinae), Santa Fe cave crayfish (Procambarus 
erythrops), spinytail crayfish (Procambarus fitzpatricki), Orange Lake 
cave crayfish (Procambarus franzi), Big Blue Springs cave crayfish 
(Procambarus horsti), lagniappe crayfish (Procambarus lagniappe), 
coastal lowland cave crayfish (Procambarus leitheuseri), Florida cave 
crayfish (Procambarus lucifugus), Alachua light-fleeing cave crayfish 
(Procambarus lucifugus alachua), Florida cave crayfish (Procambarus 
lucifugus lucifugus), Shutispear crayfish (Procambarus lylei), Miami 
cave crayfish (Procambarus milleri), Putnam County cave crayfish 
(Procambarus morrisi), Woodville Karst cave crayfish (Procambarus 
orcinus), pallid cave crayfish (Procambarus pallidus), Black Creek 
crayfish (Procambarus pictus), bearded red crayfish (Procambarus 
pogum), regal burrowing crayfish (Procambarus regalis), Irons Fork 
burrowing crayfish (Procambarus reimeri), and spider cave crayfish 
(Troglocambarus maclanei).
    The petition identified the Florida cave crayfish twice in its list 
of 404 species, once at the species level, Procambarus lucifugus, and 
once at the subspecific level, Procambarus lucifugus lucifugus. We 
include both in this finding with the intent that a further status 
review will assess the status at both the species and subspecies 
levels.
    We received an amended petition from CBD providing supplemental 
comments in support of listing the Panama City crayfish. The petition 
identified threats from habitat loss and degradation, predation, 
overharvest from collections for use as fishing bait, drought, its 
limited range and isolated distribution, pollution from pesticides and 
fertilizers, invasive species of introduced crayfish, and the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The Panama City crayfish 
only occurs in Bay County, Florida, where it is considered a species of 
special concern by the State of Florida. The Service has worked with 
the State and the St. Joe Company to develop a Candidate Conservation 
Agreement with Assurances, but the Agreement has not been finalized.
    Almost all of the petitioned crayfish are restricted to narrow 
ranges encompassing small cave or stream systems, which places them in 
the G1 or G2 NatureServe ranking due to their restricted ranges. Two 
exceptions to this are the Woodville Karst cave crayfish (Procambarus 
orcinus), which receives a G3 ranking, and the regal burrowing crayfish 
(Procambarus regalis), which is given a G2G3 ranking. Their narrow 
ranges make these crayfish vulnerable to any event that would result in 
habitat degradation. A number of the crayfish (26) were previously 
considered category 2 candidates until that category was discontinued 
by the Service in 1996.
    The petition identified 14 dragonflies and requested that they be 
added to the List, including the following: Say's spiketail 
(Cordulegaster sayi), Cherokee clubtail (Gomphus consanguis), Tennessee 
clubtail (Gomphus sandrius), Septima's clubtail (Gomphus septima), 
Westfall's clubtail (Gomphus westfalli), purple skimmer (Libellula 
jesseana), Mountain River cruiser (Macromia margarita), southern 
snaketail (Ophiogomphus australis), Edmund's snaketail (Ophiogomphus 
edmundo), Appalachian snaketail (Ophiogomphus incurvatus), Calvert's 
emerald (Somatochlora calverti), Texas emerald (Somatochlora 
margarita), Ozark emerald (Somatochlora ozarkensis), and yellow-sided 
clubtail (Stylurus potulentus).
    The Service was previously (February 15, 1994) petitioned to list 
the Say's spiketail dragonfly as an endangered species. We published a 
90-day finding on October 26, 1994 (59 FR 53776) indicating that 
because the species was already a category 2 candidate for listing we 
would proceed with a full status review. The 12-month finding was 
published on July 17, 1995 (60 FR 36380). The Service found that 
listing the species was not warranted but retained the designation of 
the Say's spiketail as a category 2 candidate species. An additional 
eight of the petitioned dragonflies held previous designations of 
category 2 candidate species, including the Cherokee clubtail, 
Tennessee clubtail, Septima's clubtail, Westfall's clubtail, Mountain 
River cruiser, Edmund's snaketail, Appalachian snaketail, and the Texas 
emerald. The NatureServe global ranking of the petitioned dragonflies 
ranges from G1, critically imperiled, to G3, vulnerable.
    The petition identified 47 fish (not including the Alabama shad 
(Alosa alabamae), which has already been the subject of a 90-day 
finding by NMFS) to be added to the List. Forty-three of these are 
included in this finding, including the following: Northern cavefish 
(Amblyopsis spelaea), bluestripe shiner (Cyprinella callitaenia), 
Altamaha shiner (Cyprinella xaenura), Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma 
boehlkei), Ozark chub (Erimystax harryi), Warrior darter (Etheostoma 
bellator), holiday darter (Etheostoma brevirostrum), ashy darter 
(Etheostoma cinereum), Barrens darter (Etheostoma forbesi), smallscale 
darter (Etheostoma microlepidum), candy darter (Etheostoma osburni), 
paleback darter (Etheostoma pallididorsum), egg-mimic darter 
(Etheostoma pseudovulatum), striated darter (Etheostoma striatulum), 
Shawnee darter (Etheostoma tecumsehi), Tippecanoe darter (Etheostoma 
tippecanoe), trispot darter (Etheostoma trisella), Tuscumbia darter 
(Etheostoma tuscumbia), Barrens topminnow (Fundulus julisia), robust 
redhorse (Moxostoma robustum), popeye shiner (Notropis ariommus), Ozark 
shiner (Notropis ozarcanus), peppered shiner (Notropis perpallidus), 
rocky shiner (Notropis suttkusi), saddled madtom (Noturus fasciatus), 
Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), orangefin madtom (Noturus 
gilberti), piebald madtom (Noturus gladiator), Ouachita madtom (Noturus 
lachneri), frecklebelly madtom (Noturus munitus), Caddo madtom (Noturus 
taylori), Chesapeake logperch (Percina bimaculata), coal darter 
(Percina brevicauda), Halloween darter (Percina crypta), bluestripe 
darter (Percina cymatotaenia), bridled darter (Percina

[[Page 59842]]

kusha), longhead darter (Percina macrocephala), longnose darter 
(Percina nasuta), bankhead darter (Percina sipsi), sickle darter 
(Percina williamsi), broadstripe shiner (Pteronotropis euryzonus), 
bluehead shiner (Pteronotropis hubbsi), and blackfin sucker (Thoburnia 
atripinnis). The NatureServe global ranking of these fish ranges from 
G1 to G4.
    Since receipt of the CBD petition, the laurel dace was proposed for 
listing as endangered (75 FR 36035; June 24, 2010). The sicklefin 
redhorse has already been found to be warranted for listing and is a 
current Federal candidate species.
    On December 30, 1977, the Barrens topminnow was proposed for 
listing as endangered with critical habitat (42 FR 65209). On March 6, 
1979, the critical habitat portion of the proposal was withdrawn due to 
the procedural and substantive changes made to the Act in 1978 (44 FR 
12382). On July 27, 1979, the Service published a reproposal of 
critical habitat for the Barrens topminnow (44 FR 44418). A final 
listing was never published, and the species was subsequently 
classified as a category 2 candidate for Federal listing until that 
category was discontinued in 1996.
    On October 6, 1983, the Service was petitioned to list the 
orangefin madtom and a substantial finding was published on January 16, 
1984 (49 FR 1919). On completion of the status review on October 12, 
1984, a 12-month finding was made that listing the orangefin madtom was 
warranted but precluded by other efforts to revise the Lists. This 
finding was announced in a July 18, 1985, Federal Register notice (50 
FR 29238). The species remained a candidate species until its removal 
from the candidate list in 1996.
    In addition to the above species, 24 of the petitioned fish were at 
one time candidates for listing under the Act. The peppered shiner, 
paleback darter, and Ouachita madtom were category 1 candidates (47 FR 
58454). However, they were subsequently removed from the candidate 
list. Twenty-one of the petitioned fish were category 2 candidates for 
listing, including the following: Northern cavefish, bluestripe shiner, 
Carolina pygmy sunfish, Warrior darter, holiday darter, ashy darter, 
Barrens darter, candy darter, egg-mimic darter, striated darter, 
trispot darter, Tuscumbia darter, robust redhorse, Ozark shiner, 
Carolina madtom, frecklebelly madtom, Caddo madtom, bluestripe darter, 
longhead darter, longnose darter, and Halloween darter.
    In 1995, the Service entered into a cooperative voluntary 
partnership, the Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee, to conserve 
the robust redhorse through a Memorandum of Understanding between State 
and Federal resource agencies, private industry, and the conservation 
community. In 2002, the Service entered into a Robust Redhorse 
Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances with the Georgia 
Department of Natural Resources and the Georgia Power Company to 
restore the species to the Ocmulgee River.
    The petition identified one springfly, the Blueridge springfly 
(Remenus kirchneri), and one moth, the Louisiana eyed silkmoth 
(Automeris louisiana), and requested that they be added to the List. 
These species hold NatureServe global rankings of G2.
    The petition identified four mammals and requested that they be 
added to the List, including the following: Sherman's short-tailed 
shrew (Blarina carolinensis shermani), Pine Island oryzomys or marsh 
rice rat (Oryzomys palustris, pop. 1), Sanibel Island oryzomys or marsh 
rice rat (Oryzomys palustris, pop. 2), and insular cotton rat (Sigmodon 
hispidus insulicola). All four of these mammals are afforded a ranking 
of G1 or T1 by NatureServe. The insular cotton rat was previously a 
category 2 candidate species but was removed from the candidate list in 
1996 when the category was discontinued.
    The petition identified two isopods and requested that they be 
added to the List: The Caecidotea cannula (no common name) and Rye Cove 
isopod (Lirceus culveri). These isopods are given NatureServe rankings 
of G2 (Caecidotea cannula) and G1 (Rye Cove isopod). Both species were 
former category 2 candidates for listing, until that category was 
discontinued in 1996.
    The petition identified 48 mussels and requested that they be added 
to the List. Thirteen species of mussels identified in the petition are 
not evaluated in this finding; twelve have previously been found by the 
Service to warrant listing, and one, the Ouachita creekshell (Villosa 
arkansasensis) has not yet been evaluated. Thirty-five of the 
petitioned species are included in this finding, including the 
following: Altamaha arcmussel (Alasmidonta arcula), southern elktoe 
(Alasmidonta triangulata), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), 
Apalachicola floater (Anodonta heardi), rayed creekshell (Anodontoides 
radiatus), western fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti), southern lance 
(Elliptio ahenea), Alabama spike (Elliptio arca), delicate spike 
(Elliptio arctata), brother spike (Elliptio fraterna), yellow lance 
(Elliptio lanceolata), St. Johns elephant ear (Elliptio monroensis), 
inflated spike (Elliptio purpurella), Tennessee pigtoe (Pleuronaia 
barnesiana), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), longsolid (Fusconaia 
subrotunda), Waccamaw fatmucket (Lampsilis fullerkati), Tennessee 
heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia), green floater (Lasmigona 
subviridis), Cumberland moccasinshell (Medionidus conradicus), Suwannee 
moccasinshell (Medionidus walkeri), round hickorynut (Obovaria 
subrotunda), Alabama hickorynut (Obovaria unicolor), Canoe Creek pigtoe 
(Pleurobema athearni), Tennessee clubshell (Pleurobema oviforme), 
Warrior pigtoe (Pleurobema rubellum), pyramid pigtoe (Pleurobema 
rubrum), inflated floater (Pyganodon gibbosa), Tallapoosa orb (Quadrula 
asperata archeri), salamander mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua), purple 
lilliput (Toxolasma lividus), Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), 
Alabama rainbow (Villosa nebulosa), Kentucky creekshell (Villosa 
ortmanni), and Coosa creekshell (Villosa umbrans).
    These mussels have NatureServe rankings ranging from G1, critically 
imperiled, to G3, vulnerable, with one mussel, the round hickorynut, 
having a ranking of G4, apparently stable. The Atlantic pigtoe, 
Waccamaw fatmucket, Tennessee heelsplitter, green floater, Suwannee 
moccasinshell, Tennessee clubshell, warrior pigtoe, salamander mussel, 
purple lilliput, Savannah lilliput, and Kentucky creekshell, are 
previous category 2 candidates for listing, but were removed when the 
category was discontinued in 1996.
    The snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) and rayed bean (Villosa 
fabalis) were proposed for listing as endangered on November 2, 2010 
(75 FR 67552). The spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) and sheepnose 
(Plethobasus cyphyus) were proposed as endangered on January 19, 2011 
(76 FR 3392). The other eight are current candidates for Federal 
listing and subjects of a draft proposed rule to list, including the 
narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia), round ebonyshell (Fusconaia 
rotulata), southern sandshell (Hamiota australis), fuzzy pigtoe 
(Pleurobema strodeanum), southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi), 
rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia 
burkei), and Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis).
    The petition identified six non-vascular plants and requested that 
they be added to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, 
including the following: Fissidens appalachensis (Appalachian fissidens 
moss), Fissidens hallii (Hall's pocket moss), Megaceros aenigmaticus 
(hornwort), Phaeophyscia

[[Page 59843]]

leana (Lea's bog lichen), Plagiochila caduciloba (Gorge leafy 
liverwort), and Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii (Sharp's leafy 
liverwort). The NatureServe Global ranking for these plants ranges from 
G2, imperiled (Fissidens appalachensis, Fissidens hallii, Phaeophyscia 
leana, and Megaceros aenigmaticus), to G3, vulnerable (Plagiochila 
caduciloba), to T3, vulnerable (Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii). 
Plagiochila caduciloba and Plagiochila sharpii ssp. sharpii held prior 
Federal category 2 candidate status, but were removed from that list 
when we discontinued use of the category 2 and 3C lists in 1996.
    The petition identified 13 reptiles and requested that they be 
added to the List. Twelve of these are subjects of this finding, 
including the following: Kirtland's snake (Clonophis kirtlandii), 
western chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia miaria), Florida keys 
mole skink (Eumeces egregius egregius), Barbour's map turtle (Graptemys 
barbouri), Escambia map turtle (Graptemys ernsti), Pascagoula map 
turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi), black-knobbed map turtle (Graptemys 
nigrinoda), Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra), Lower Florida Keys 
striped mud turtle (Kinosternon baurii, pop. 1), Florida Panhandle 
Florida red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys nelsoni, pop. 1), northern red-
bellied cooter (Pseudemys rubriventris), and Lower Florida Keys eastern 
ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus, pop. 1).
    The Kirtland's snake, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, 
and Pascagoula map turtle have a NatureServe conservation status of G2, 
with State rankings varying from possibly extirpated, to S1, to S2. The 
black-knobbed map turtle has a NatureServe ranking of G3. The Alabama 
map turtle has a NatureServe ranking of G4, but State rankings vary 
from S1 to S3. The Florida Keys mole skink and Lower Florida Keys 
eastern ribbonsnake are given a NatureServe global ranking of T1. The 
western chicken turtle is considered secure by NatureServe with a 
global ranking of T5. The Lower Florida Keys striped mud turtle and the 
Florida Panhandle population of the Florida red-bellied turtle are 
given a T2 NatureServe ranking. We proposed to list the striped mud 
turtle as endangered on May 19, 1978 (43 FR 21702) but never finalized 
the listing. The species was placed on the category 2 candidate list on 
December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454). The northern red-bellied cooter is 
given a NatureServe ranking of G4 or apparently stable with State 
rankings ranging from S2 (imperiled) to S5 (stable). In addition to the 
striped mud turtle, Kirtland's snake, Florida Keys mole skink, and 
Barbour's map turtle were each prior Federal category 2 candidate 
species. The black-knobbed map turtle was a prior category 3C candidate 
species (taxa that were proven to be more widespread than was 
previously believed and/or those that were not subject to any 
identifiable threat).
    The petition identified 44 snails and requested that they be added 
to the List, of which 43 are subjects of this finding, including the 
following: Manitou cavesnail (Antrorbis breweri), Blue Spring hydrobe 
snail (Aphaostracon asthenes), freemouth hydrobe snail (Aphaostracon 
chalarogyrus), Wekiwa hydrobe snail (Aphaostracon monas), dense hydrobe 
snail (Aphaostracon pycnus), Clifton Spring hydrobe snail (Aphaostracon 
theiocrenetum), acute elimia (Elimia acuta), mud elimia (Elimia 
alabamensis), ample elimia (Elimia ampla), Lilyshoals elimia (Elimia 
annettae), spider elimia (Elimia arachnoidea), princess elimia (Elimia 
bellacrenata), walnut elimia (Elimia bellula), prune elimia (Elimia 
chiltonensis), cockle elimia (Elimia cochliaris), cylinder elimia 
(Elimia cylindracea), nodulose Coosa River snail (Elimia lachryma), 
round-rib elimia (Elimia nassula), caper elimia (Elimia olivula), 
engraved elimia (Elimia perstriata), compact elimia (Elimia 
showalteri), elegant elimia (Elimia teres), cobble elimia (Elimia 
vanuxemiana), Ichetucknee siltsnail (Floridobia mica), Enterprise 
siltsnail (Floridobia monroensis), pygmy siltsnail (Floridobia parva), 
Ponderosa siltsnail (Floridobia ponderosa), Wekiwa siltsnail 
(Floridobia wekiwae), spiny riversnail (Io fluvialis), Arkansas mudalia 
(Leptoxis arkansasensis), spotted rocksnail (Leptoxis picta), smooth 
mudalia (Leptoxis virgata), knobby rocksnail (Lithasia curta), helmet 
rocksnail (Lithasia duttoniana), Ocmulgee marstonia (Marstonia 
agarhecta), beaverpond marstonia (Marstonia castor), Ozark pyrg 
(Marstonia ozarkensis), magnificant rams-horn (Planorbella magnifica), 
corpulent hornsnail (Pleurocera corpulenta), shortspire hornsnail 
(Pleurocera curta), skirted hornsnail (Pleurocera pyrenella), domed 
ancylid (Rhodacme elatior), and reverse pebblesnail (Somatogyrus 
alcoviensis).
    These 43 snails each maintain a NatureServe ranking of either G1, 
critically imperiled, or G2, imperiled. Several are previous Federal 
category 2 candidates, including the magnificent rams-horn, beaverpond 
marstonia, Ocmulgee marstonia, and the skirted hornsnail, until that 
category was discontinued in 1996.
    The petition identified eight stoneflies and requested that they be 
added to the List, including the following: Virginia stone (Acroneuria 
kosztarabi), Sevier snowfly (Allocapnia brooksi), Smokies snowfly 
(Allocapnia fumosa), Karst snowfly (Allocapnia cunninghami), Tennessee 
forestfly (Amphinemura mockfordi), Louisiana needlefly (Leuctra 
szczytkoi), Smokies needlefly (Megaleuctra williamsae), and lobed 
roachfly (Tallaperla lobata). The Virginia stone and Karst snowfly are 
assigned a NatureServe global ranking of G1, critically imperiled. The 
Sevier snowfly, Smokies snowfly, Tennessee forestfly, Louisiana 
needlefly, Smokies needlefly, and lobed roachfly are assigned 
NatureServe global rankings of G2.
    Lastly, the petition identified 76 vascular plants and requested 
that they be added to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, of 
which 75 are included in this finding, including the following: 
Aeschynomene pratensis (meadow joint-vetch), Alnus maritima (seaside 
alder), Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana (Georgia leadplant or Georgia 
indigo bush), Arnoglossum diversifolium (variable-leaved Indian-
plantain), Balduina atropurpurea (purple balduina or purple disk 
honeycombhead), Baptisia megacarpa (Apalachicola wild indigo), Bartonia 
texana (Texas screwstem), Boltonia montana (Doll's daisy), Calamovilfa 
arcuata (rivergrass), Carex brysonii (Bryson's sedge), Carex 
impressinervia (impressed-nerved sedge), Coreopsis integrifolia 
(ciliate-leaf tickseed), Croton elliottii (Elliott's croton), Elytraria 
caroliniensis var. angustifolia (narrowleaf Carolina scalystem), 
Encyclia cochleata var. triandra (Clam-shell orchid), Epidendrum 
strobiliferum (Big Cypress epidendrum), Eriocaulon koernickianum 
(small-headed pipewort), Eriocaulon nigrobracteatum (black-bracked 
pipewort), Eupatorium paludicola (a thoroughwort), Eurybia 
saxicastellii (Rockcastle wood-aster), Fimbristylis perpusilla 
(Harper's fimbristylis), Forestiera godfreyi (Godfry's privet), 
Hartwrightia floridan (Hartwrightia), Helianthus occidentalis ssp. 
plantagineus (Shinner's sunflower), Hexastylis speciosa (Harper's 
heartleaf), Hymenocallis henryae (Henry's spider-lily), Hypericum 
edisonianum (Edison's ascyrum), Hypericum lissophloeus (smooth-barked 
St. John's-w