Endangered and Threatened Wildlife And

28094 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules

* * * * * means that we will post any personal accept the petitioner’s sources and Dated: May 7, 2008. information you provide us (see the characterizations of the information, to Lyle Laverty, Public Comments Solicited section the extent that they appear to be based below for more information). on accepted scientific principles (such Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and as citing published and peer reviewed Parks. You may obtain copies of the petition, reports, and reviews of reports upon articles, or studies done in accordance [FR Doc. E8–10887 Filed 5–14–08; 8:45 am] which this 90-day finding is based by with valid methodologies), unless we BILLING CODE 4310–55–C visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal have specific information to the at http://www.regulations.gov or our contrary. Our finding considers whether the petition states a reasonable case on DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ southwest/es/arizona/, or by contacting its face that delisting may be warranted. Fish and Wildlife Service the Arizona Ecological Services Field Thus, our 90-day finding expresses no Office at the address or contact numbers view as to the ultimate issue of whether 50 CFR Part 17 under ADDRESSES. the species should no longer be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: classified as a threatened species. We [FWS–R2–ES–2008–0037; 92220–1113– make no determinations as to the value, 0000–C5] Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona accuracy, completeness, or veracity of the petition. The contents of this finding Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Ecological Services Field Office; by summarize that information that was and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Petition telephone at 602/242–0210; or by available to us at the time of the petition To Delist the Hualapai Mexican Vole facsimile at 602/242–2513. Persons who review. (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis) use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the petitioner AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Information Relay Service (FIRS) at and information available in our files at Interior. 800–877–8339. the time we reviewed the petition, and ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: finding. we evaluated that information in Background accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our SUMMARY: process for making a 90-day finding We, the U.S. Fish and Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 Wildlife Service (Service), make a 90- under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we section 424.14(b) of our regulations is day finding on a petition to remove the make a finding on whether a petition to Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus limited to a determination of whether list, delist, or reclassify a species the information contained in the mexicanus hualpaiensis) from the presents substantial scientific or Federal List of Threatened and petition meets the ‘‘substantial commercial information indicating that information’’ threshold. Endangered Wildlife and Plants the petitioned action may be warranted. pursuant to the Endangered Species Act On August 23, 2004, we received a We are to base this finding on petition dated August 18, 2004, from the (Act). We find that the petition presents information provided in the petition. To substantial information indicating that Arizona Game and Fish Department the maximum extent practicable, we (AGFD 2004) to delist the Hualapai delisting this mammal may be must make this finding within 90 days warranted. We are initiating a status Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus of receipt of the petition, and publish hualpaiensis). The petition (AGFD 2004, review to determine if delisting this the finding promptly in the Federal subspecies is warranted. We are pp. 4–6) states that: (1) The subspecies Register. occurs over a much greater area and in requesting submission of any Our review of a 90-day finding under information on the Hualapai Mexican higher numbers than previously section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR thought; (2) it is likely that all vole relevant to its listing status under 424.14(b) is limited to a determination the Act. Following this review, we will populations referred to as M. m. of whether the information in the hualpaiensis, along with other issue a 12-month finding on the petition meets the ‘‘substantial petition. populations of the species in Arizona, information’’ threshold. ‘‘Substantial should be referred to as M. m. DATES: This finding was made on May information’’ is defined in section mogollonensis; and (3) the threats faced 15, 2008. To be considered in the 12- 424.14(b) of our regulations as ‘‘that by this more widespread taxon do not month finding on this petition, amount of information that would lead indicate that listing under the Act is comments and information should be a reasonable person to believe that the warranted. submitted to us by July 14, 2008. measure proposed in the petition may ADDRESSES: You may submit written be warranted.’’ Petitioners need not Species Information comments and materials to us by one of prove that the petitioned action is The Mexican vole is a cinnamon- the following methods: warranted to support a ‘‘substantial’’ brown, mouse-sized rodent • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// finding; instead, the key consideration approximately 5.5 inches (14 cm) long www.regulations.gov. Follow the in evaluating a petition for with a short tail and small ears that are instructions for submitting comments. substantiality involves demonstration of obscured by its fur (Hoffmeister 1986, p. • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public the reliability and adequacy of the 441; 52 FR 36776, October 1, 1987). Comments Processing, Attn: Docket information supporting the action Goldman (1938, pp. 493–494) FWS–R2–ES–2008–0037, Division of advocated by the petition. described and named the Hualapai Policy and Directives Management, U.S. We have to satisfy the Act’s Mexican vole (also known as the Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. requirement that we use the best Hualapai vole) as Microtus mexicanus Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA available science to make our decisions. hualapaiensis in 1938. This was based 22203. However, we do not conduct additional on only four specimens, but Cockrum We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We research at this point, nor do we subject (1960, p. 210), Hall (1981, p. 481), and will post all comments on http:// the petition to rigorous critical review. Hoffmeister (1986, pp. 444–445) all www.regulations.gov. This generally Rather, at the 90-day finding stage, we recognized the subspecies. M. m.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:04 May 14, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1 yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 28095

hualpaiensis has been considered one of below. Researchers did not collect or (Watson Woods and Navajo Mountain). three subspecies of M. mexicanus found analyze samples from the exact same The petition states that their results did in Arizona (Kime et al. 1995, p. 1). It locations, so site names across studies not support separation of M. mexicanus was distinguished from M. m. navaho to do not necessarily match. We have in Arizona into three distinct the northeast by a slightly longer body, presented site names and resulting subspecies. Populations assigned to M. longer tail, and longer and broader skull population assignments as described in m. navajo from Navajo Mountain, (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 443). It was the petition and studies cited in the Mingus Mountain, San Francisco Peaks, distinguished from M. m. mogollonensis petition. and the Grand Canyon South Rim, and by a longer body, shorter tail, and a As a point of clarification, Frey and populations assigned to M. m. longer and narrower skull (Hoffmeister LaRue (1993, p. 176) asserted that mogollonensis from the Mogollon Rim, 1986, p. 443). Mexican voles from Mexico are distinct Chuska Mountains, and White The final rule listing M. m. from populations in the United States Mountains were not differentiated from hualpaiensis (52 FR 36776) indicated based on genetic and morphologic data. those from the Hualapai Mountains, that this subspecies occupied the They assigned voles in Arizona, New Hualapai Indian Reservation, Aubrey Hualapai Mountains, but also Mexico, and Texas that were formerly Cliffs, Bradshaw Mountains, Watson acknowledged that Spicer et al. (1985, named M. mexicanus to M. Woods, and Sierra Prieta (AGFD 2004, p. 10) noted similar voles from the mogollonensis (Frey and LaRue 1993, p. 3; Busch et al. 2001, p. 2). The Music Mountains and that Hoffmeister pp. 176–177). Because the Service did petition states that the authors believed (1986, p. 445) had tentatively assigned not formally change the scientific name the specimens from the White specimens from Prospect Valley to M. of the Hualapai Mexican vole, we Mountains and Chuska Mountains m. hualpaiensis. The rule stated that if continue to use the name M. mexicanus could be considered a different future taxonomic evaluation of voles in this finding. subspecies, or they may simply show from the Music Mountains and Prospect The petition states that in 1993, Frey some genetic difference due to Valley should indicate that they are M. and Yates conducted a genetic analysis geographic separation (AGFD 2004, p. 3; m. hualpaiensis, the voles from the on tissue samples from 12 populations Busch et al. 2001, p. 11–12). According Music Mountains and Prospect Valley (AGFD 2004, p. 2); there was an to Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) and would be covered by the listing of the additional population from Mexico acknowledged by the petitioner, there is subspecies. (Frey and Yates 1995, p. 9) not only one subspecies of M. mexicanus in At the time of Federal listing, little mentioned in the petition. According to Arizona. was known about the life history of the the petition (AGFD 2004, pp. 2–3), the The petition included reviews by five Hualapai Mexican vole, but it was results showed that three populations experts familiar with genetic research assumed to be similar to the other two (Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Indian who analyzed the Busch et al. (2001) M. mexicanus subspecies (Service 1991, Reservation, and Music Mountains) report. According to the petition (AGFD p. 1). Hualapai Mexican voles are were genetically distinct from other 2004, pp. 3–4), one reviewer believed probably active year-round, as are other populations in Arizona and indicated the data collected from Hualapai Microtus species (Spicer et al. 1985, p. that all three populations might be Mountains, Hualapai Indian 22). It is assumed they have small placed in the subspecies M. m. Reservation, Aubrey Cliffs/Chino Wash, litters, similar to the other two hualpaiensis. The petition noted that Bradshaw Mountains/Watson Woods, subspecies, as they have only two pairs Frey and Yates (1993) stipulated that and Sierra Prieta represented five of mammae (mammary glands), which additional analyses including larger populations of M. m. hualpaiensis. limits the number of young that can be sample sizes might substantiate their Conversely, the reviewer concluded that nursed (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 443). findings. The petition states that Frey the data from three sites (Mingus Mexican voles are typically found in and Yates (1995) continued their work Mountain, San Francisco Peaks, and xeric (dry) habitats, unlike most on the three Arizona subspecies and Grand Canyon South Rim) represented a Microtus species, which are associated found that six of the populations different subspecies (M. m. navaho). with mesic (intermediate moisture) sampled (Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai The reviewer also suggested that the habitats (Tamarin 1985, p. 99). Indian Reservation, Music Mountains, populations found in the Music A recovery plan for the Hualapai Aubrey Cliffs/Chino Wash, Santa Maria Mountains and the Santa Maria Mexican vole was completed and signed Mountains, and Bradshaw Mountains) Mountains were likely M. m. in August 1991. It outlined recovery could be placed in the subspecies M. m. hualpaiensis based on ‘‘less well- objectives and has directed management hualpaiensis (AGFD 2004, p. 3). In fact, supported morphologic, genetic, and and research priorities for the ensuing Frey and Yates (1995, p. 9) treated the biogeographic data,’’ for a total of seven years. Aubrey Cliffs and Chino Wash populations. This reviewer did not populations as two distinct populations, include a discussion of M. m. Recent Taxonomy bringing the number of M. m. mogollonensis and the validity of that Following Federal listing of the hualpaiensis populations to seven. They subspecies. The petition states that the Hualapai Mexican vole, several focused also believed that two other populations other four reviewers concurred overall surveys of the subspecies’ distribution, (Round Mountain and Sierra Prieta) with the conclusions in Busch et al. habitat requirements, and genetic could be placed in the subspecies M. m. (2001) that all populations sampled relationship to other M. mexicanus hualpaiensis, based on geographic could be assigned to M. m. hualpaiensis subspecies were undertaken. The proximity (AGFD 2004, p. 3). (AGFD 2004, p. 4). petition reviews the taxonomic history Additional genetic analyses were Additionally, AGFD sent Busch et of the Hualapai Mexican vole and recent conducted by Busch et al. (2001). al.’s 2001 report to two different experts genetic studies that have a bearing on its According to the petition (AGFD 2004, on mammalian taxonomy. The petition taxonomic status and concludes that p. 3), they assessed the evolutionary states that one of the taxonomic only one subspecies of M. mexicanus relatedness of 11 of the 16 populations reviewers agreed with the dissenting should be recognized in Arizona. We that Frey and Yates reported on in 1995. genetic review discussed in the briefly describe the petition’s In addition, they analyzed samples preceding paragraph that there are interpretations of these genetic studies taken from specimens in two other areas sufficient data to support distinguishing

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:04 May 14, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1 yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS 28096 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules

more than one subspecies (AGFD 2004, very limited information in our files the subspecies. We have no information p. 4). The reviewer concurred with the with which to draw conclusions in our files to indicate that the geneticist’s population assignments of regarding potential populations outside petitioner’s information is unreliable or the subspecies. The petition states that the Hualapai Mountains. inaccurate. the other taxonomic reviewer concluded A. The Present or Threatened C. Disease or Predation that there is no basis to consider the Destruction, Modification, or three subspecies separate, that the The final rule listing the Hualapai Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range reviewer stated that data used by Mexican vole states that little is known Hoffmeister (1986) were insufficient to The final rule listing the subspecies about disease or predation in Hualapai recognize three subspecies, and the considered the Hualapai Mexican vole Mexican vole populations (52 FR genetic analyses (DNA and isozyme) to be extremely rare, with one of the 36778). However, species of Microtus (Frey and Yates 1993; 1995; Busch et al. most limited habitats of any North are usually a fundamental part of the 2001) were subject to methodological American mammal (52 FR 36776). The base of the food pyramid, and many problems (AGFD 2004, p. 4). The habitat was considered in danger of potential predators occur in the reviewer asserted that all three further degradation by cattle grazing and Hualapai Mountains. Additionally, subspecies should be considered as one, increased human recreational activities. domestic cats may pose a threat from M. m. mogollonensis. The petition asserts that the subspecies the expanding residential area near In summary, the various analyses and occurs over a much greater area and in Hualapai Mountain Park. The petitioner reviews present multiple interpretations higher numbers than previously thought notes that predation is not known to be of the taxonomy and distribution of (AGFD 2004, pp. 2–6; see Recent a problem, especially if the range of the voles in Arizona, none of which match Taxonomy discussion above). Therefore, subspecies is not limited to the that of our original listing. Although we loss of limited habitat should no longer Hualapai Mountains (AGFD 2004, p. 6). are unable to ascertain the correct be considered a threat to the subspecies. Additionally, the petitioner notes that interpretation at this time, we believe In addition, the petitioner asserts that domestic cats have rarely been observed the petitioner has presented reliable and the Hualapai Mexican vole is found in in Hualapai Mountain Park and, accurate information indicating (1) That more xeric habitats than most Microtus therefore, believes the threat of the Hualapai Mexican vole, as currently species (AGFD 2004, p. 5); therefore, predation on Hualapai Mexican voles is listed, may not be a valid taxonomic trampling of spring areas by cattle will overstated in the listing rule. However, entity; and (2) that if the Hualapai not negatively affect the subspecies as the petitioner provides no information Mexican vole is a valid taxon, it likely intensely as it was thought when the to support these assertions. occurs throughout a greater range than subspecies was listed. Although domestic cats have been originally thought. The Service only tracks the status of mentioned as a threat (Spicer 1985, p. the Hualapai Mexican vole populations 28), we have no information to suggest Status Assessment within the Hualapai Mountains, where these cats represent a significant Pursuant to section 4 of the Act, we it was listed. There is not enough predation threat to the Hualapai may list or delist a species, subspecies, information in our files to assess the Mexican vole. Therefore, we assume or Distinct Population Segment of reliability of information in the petition; that the petitioner’s information is vertebrate taxa on the basis of any of the therefore, we assume it is reliable. reliable. following five factors: (A) Present or threatened destruction, modification, or B. Overutilization for Commercial, D. The Inadequacy of Existing curtailment of habitat or range; (B) Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Regulatory Mechanisms overutilization for commercial, Purposes The petition states that the removal of recreational, scientific, or educational While the Hualapai Mexican vole is Federal protections afforded by the Act purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) not sought for commercial, recreational, will not negatively affect Hualapai inadequacy of existing regulatory or educational purposes, persecuted as Mexican vole populations, since the mechanisms; or (E) other natural or a pest, or collected for the pet trade, the species’ range and habitat requirements manmade factors affecting its continued final rule listing the species indicated are not as restricted as previously existence. If it is determined that the that an intensive trapping effort could thought (AGFD 2004, p. 6). The petition Hualapai Mexican vole is a valid taxon eliminate a population (52 FR 36773). also recognizes that Arizona Game and occurring throughout a larger range, a The petition notes that collecting of the Fish Commission Order 14 prohibits new status review, based on a review of Hualapai Mexican vole has historically hunting or trapping of Hualapai the five listing factors, would be been done for genetic analyses and Mexican voles. Arizona Revised Statute required in order to determine if the comparison of morphological (i.e., State Law) allows for the Hualapai Mexican vole still meets the measurements and that, historically, the Commission to issue orders regarding definition of threatened or endangered number of individuals taken was small the hunting and trapping of wildlife in under the Act. This 90-day finding is relative to the number captured (AGFD Arizona. Also, since the petitioner, not a status assessment and does not 2004, p. 6). Genetic analyses may AGFD, has authority over scientific constitute a status review under the Act. continue, but will be monitored through collection permits, it can approve or Therefore, what follows below is a scientific collection permits authorized deny permits based on submitted preliminary review of the factors by the petitioner, AGFD. The petitioner research proposals (AGFD 2004, pp. 6– affecting this subspecies, as presented does not believe that this factor rises to 7). by the petitioner. Please note that the the level of a threat. The Service only tracks the status of petitioner addressed the subspecies as Overutilization for commercial, the Hualapai Mexican vole populations though it occurs in a larger range than recreational, scientific, or education within the Hualapai Mountains, where what is currently recognized. Because purposes was not presented as a threat it is listed. We do not have any we only monitor populations of in the final listing rule, and we have not information in our files to indicate that Hualapai Mexican vole that occur received any reports of overutilization a lack of regulatory mechanisms could within the Hualapai Mountains, as of Hualapai Mexican voles in the be a problem. Therefore, we assume that described in the listing rule, we have Hualapai Mountains since the listing of the petitioner’s information is reliable.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:04 May 14, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1 yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 95 / Thursday, May 15, 2008 / Proposed Rules 28097

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors information is adequate to demonstrate submit your comments and materials Affecting Its Continued Existence that delisting may be warranted. While concerning the taxonomic and listing The final rule listing the Hualapai significant questions remain about the status of M. m. hualapaiensis by one of Mexican vole notes that the areas of taxonomy of the species and threats the methods listed in the ADDRESSES habitat supporting the subspecies are facing the additional populations of section. We will not accept comments small and isolated (52 FR 36778). This voles, we consider these questions to be sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not mammal is thus fragmented into small issues relevant to the listing listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will populations that may be subject to determination that warrant further not accept anonymous comments; your inbreeding and reduced genetic investigation. Accordingly, we believe it comments must include your first and variability. Drought, which can reduce is appropriate to consider this last name, city, State , country, and water flow, vegetation growth, and information and any other new postal (zip) code. Finally, we will not ground cover, is an additional threat to information available about this species, consider hand-delivered comments that these populations (52 FR 36778). The and the threats it may face, in a status we do not receive, or mailed comments petition asserts that because the review. that are not postmarked, by the date Hualapai Mexican vole’s range is not as Public Information Solicited specified in the DATES section. restricted as once thought, manmade Comments submitted via http:// When we make a finding that a factors should not negatively influence www.regulations.gov must be submitted the continued existence of the species petition presents substantial before midnight (Eastern Standard (AGFD 2004, p. 7). Additionally, the information to indicate that delisting a Time) on the date specified in the DATES petitioner states that drought is not a species may be warranted, we are section. required to promptly commence a serious threat to Hualapai Mexican vole We will post your entire comment— populations, because the normal and review of the status of the species. Based on results of the status review, we including your personal identifying regular occurrence of drought probably information—on http:// allowed this vole to adapt to drier make a 12-month finding as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. To ensure www.regulations.gov. If you provide habitat conditions (AGFD 2004, p. 7). personal identifying information in The petitioner also suggested that that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific addition to the required items specified prescribed fire might improve or expand on the previous paragraph, such as your the habitat of the species (AGFD 2004, information, we are soliciting information on M. mexicanus in street address, phone number, or e-mail p. 7). address, you may request at the top of The Service only tracks the status of Arizona. This includes information regarding historical and current your document that we withhold this the Hualapai Mexican vole populations information from public review. within the Hualapai Mountains, where distribution, taxonomic status, biology and ecology, ongoing conservation However, we cannot guarantee that we it is listed. The apparent continued will be able to do so. presence of the vole in those mountains measures for the species and its habitat, (Kime et al. 1995, p. 6) suggests that and threats to the species and its Comments and materials we receive, drought may not be as great a threat as habitat. This information is particularly as well as supporting documentation we was thought at the time of listing. We needed for any populations of the taxon used in preparing this finding, will be did not address prescribed fire as a that were not among the three potential available for public inspection on http:// manmade factor in our listing rule. populations considered to be M. m. www.regulations.gov, or by There is not enough information in our hualapaiensis in the 1987 final listing. appointment, during normal business files to draw conclusions regarding the We also request information regarding hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife effects of drought or prescribed burns on the adequacy of existing regulatory Service, Arizona Ecological Services additional populations; however, we mechanisms. We request any additional Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, have no information to indicate that the information, comments, and suggestions Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021 (602/242– petitioner’s information is unreliable or from the public, other concerned 0210). inaccurate. Therefore, we assumed the governmental agencies, Tribes, the References Cited petitioner’s information is reliable. scientific community, industry or environmental entities, or any other A complete list of all references cited Finding interested parties concerning the status in this finding is available, upon We have reviewed the petition and of M. mexicanus in Arizona. request, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife the supporting documents, as well as We are particularly interested in the Service, Arizona Ecological Services other information in our files. We find views of scientists with expertise in Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, that the petition presents substantial mammalian taxonomy and the use of Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021 (602/242– information indicating that delisting the genetic data when making taxonomic 0210). Hualapai Mexican vole may be determinations of species and warranted. The petitioner has provided subspecies. In particular, we are Authority information suggesting the taxon may interested in review and comment on The authority for this action is section occur over a greater range of the State whether the information such as the 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 than known at the time of listing, and original morphological evidence and (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). may not even warrant taxonomic new genetic reports support or refute Dated: May 2, 2008. standing as a subspecies. As discussed the taxonomic validity of M. m. above, given the limited information in hualapaiensis. Kenneth Stansell, our files regarding these issues, we If you wish to comment, you may Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. assume that the information presented submit your comments and materials [FR Doc. E8–10906 Filed 5–14–08; 8:45 am] in the petition is reliable. If reliable, that concerning this finding. You may BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:04 May 14, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM 15MYP1 yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS