Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 146/Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 43905

comment period of the NPRM to ensure ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition available scientific and commercial that all individuals have an opportunity finding and initiation of status review. information, we are soliciting to comment on the proposed rule. Also, information on the status of the Tucson the submission of comments SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and shovel-nosed snake. We request electronically will now be through the Wildlife Service (Service), announce a information from the public, other OMB regulations Web site, 90-day finding on a petition to list the concerned governmental agencies, regulations.gov, rather than ACF’s Tucson shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis Tribes, the scientific community, regulations Web site. occipitalis klauberi) as threatened or industry, or any other interested parties DATES: Comments will be accepted endangered under the Endangered concerning the status of the Tucson through September 29, 2008. Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). shovel-nosed snake. We are seeking We find that the petition presents ADDRESSES: Interested persons are information regarding the subspecies’ substantial scientific or commercial invited to submit comments regarding historical and current status and information indicating that listing the this proposed rule to: Commissioner, distribution, its biology and ecology, its Tucson shovel-nosed snake may be Administration on Developmental taxonomy (especially genetics of the Disabilities, Administration for Children warranted. Therefore, with the subspecies), ongoing conservation and Families, 370 L’Enfant Promenade, publication of this notice, we are measures for the subspecies and its SW., Mail Stop: HHH 405D, initiating a status review of the habitat, and threats to either the Washington, DC 20447. Persons may subspecies, and we will issue a 12- subspecies or its habitat. also transmit comments electronically month finding to determine if listing the If we determine that listing the via the internet at: http:// subspecies is warranted. To ensure that Tucson shovel-nosed snake is www.regulations.gov. Electronic the status review of the Tucson shovel- warranted, it is our intent to propose comments must include the full name, nosed snake is comprehensive, we are critical habitat to the maximum extent address, and organizational affiliation (if soliciting scientific and commercial prudent and determinable at the time any) of the commenter. All comments information regarding this subspecies. we would propose to list the subspecies. and letters will be available for public DATES: To allow us adequate time to Therefore, with regard to areas within inspection, Monday through Friday 7 conduct a status review, we request that the geographical range currently a.m. to 4 p.m., at the address above, by information be submitted on or before occupied by the Tucson shovel-nosed calling (202) 690–5841 to set up an September 29, 2008. snake, we also request data and appointment and gain entry to the ADDRESSES: You may submit information on what may constitute building. Electronically-submitted information by one of the following physical or biological features essential comments will be available for viewing methods: to the conservation of the subspecies, immediately. To download an electronic • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// where these features are currently version of the rule, access the OMB Web www.regulations.gov. Follow the found, and whether any of these site http://www.regulations.gov. instructions for submitting comments. features may require special • management considerations or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2– protection. In addition, we request data Elsbeth Porter Wyatt, Administration on and information regarding whether Developmental Disabilities, telephone ES–2008–0060, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and there are areas outside the geographical (202) 690–5841 (Voice). The TDD area occupied by the subspecies that are telephone number for the Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. essential to the conservation of the Administration on Developmental subspecies. Please provide specific We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We Disabilities is (202) 690–6415. These are information as to what, if any, critical will post all information received on not toll-free numbers. This document habitat should be proposed for http://www.regulations.gov. This will be made available in alternative designation, if the subspecies is generally means that we will post any formats upon request. proposed for listing, and why that personal information you provide us Dated: July 22, 2008. proposed habitat meets the (see the Information Solicited section Ann C. Agnew, requirements of the Act. below for more details). Executive Secretary to the Department. Please note that comments merely FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [FR Doc. E8–17296 Filed 7–28–08; 8:45 am] stating support or opposition to the Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, BILLING CODE 4194–01–P action under consideration without Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 providing supporting information, West Royal Palm Drive, Suite 103, although noted, will not be considered Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone 602–242– DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR in making a determination, as section 0210; facsimile 602–242–2513. If you 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that Fish and Wildlife Service use a telecommunications device for the determinations as to whether any deaf (TDD), please call the Federal species is a threatened or endangered 50 CFR Part 17 Information Relay Service (FIRS) at species must be made ‘‘solely on the 800–877–8339. basis of the best scientific and [FWS–R2–ES–2008–0060]; [1111–FY06–MO– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: commercial data available.’’ Based on B2] the status review, we will issue a 12- Information Solicited Endangered and Threatened Wildlife month finding on the petition, as and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a When we make a finding that a provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. Petition To List the Tucson Shovel- petition presents substantial You may submit your information Nosed Snake (Chionactis occipitalis information indicating that listing a concerning this finding by one of the ADDRESSES klauberi) as Threatened or Endangered species may be warranted, we are methods listed in the with Critical Habitat required to promptly commence a section. We will not consider review of the status of the species. To submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, ensure that the status review is an address not listed in the ADDRESSES Interior. complete and based on the best section.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Jul 28, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM 29JYP1 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS 43906 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules

If you submit information via http:// throughout its range and designate and the intergrade zone between them. www.regulations.gov, your entire critical habitat within its range in the Therefore, we do not consider shovel- submission—including any personal United States. The petition, which was nosed snakes within the intergrade zone identifying information—will be posted clearly identified as such, contained to be members of the Tucson shovel- on the Web site. If your submission is detailed information on the natural nosed snake subspecies, and thus they made via a hardcopy that includes history, biology, current status and are not included in our threats analysis personal identifying information, you distribution of the Tucson shovel-nosed below. may request at the top of your document snake. It also contained information on Previous Federal Action that we withhold this information from what the petitioner reported as potential public review. However, we cannot threats to the subspecies from urban No previous Federal action has been guarantee that we will be able to do so. development, agricultural practices, taken on the Tucson shovel-nosed We will post all hardcopy submissions collecting, inadequacy of existing snake. The Tucson shovel-nosed snake on http://www.regulations.gov. regulations, drought, and climate has no Federal regulatory status under Information and materials we receive, change. In response to the petitioner’s the Act. as well as supporting documentation we requests, we sent a letter to the Species Information used in preparing this finding, will be petitioner, dated September 7, 2005, The Tucson shovel-nosed snake was available for public inspection on http:// explaining that, due to funding first described as a subspecies, Sonora www.regulations.gov, or by constraints in fiscal year 2005, we occipitalis klauberi, by Stickel in 1941. appointment, during normal business would not be able to address the The genus was changed to Chionactis hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife petition in a timely manner. On Service, Arizona Ecological Services from the genus Sonora two years later February 28, 2006, the petitioner filed a (Stickel 1943). Since being described, Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 60-day notice of intent to sue (NOI) the CONTACT). the Tucson shovel-nosed snake has been Department of the Interior for failure to widely accepted as a subspecies Background issue 90-day and 12-month findings, (Klauber 1951, p. 187; Stebbins 2003, p. and a proposed listing rule, as Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 394; Crother 2008, p. 48), and is one of appropriate, in response to the petition that we make a finding on whether a four currently recognized subspecies of as required by 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A) petition to list, delist, or reclassify a western shovel-nosed snakes, and (B). In response to the NOI, we species presents substantial scientific or Chionactis occipitalis (Crother 2008). In agreed to submit a 90-day finding to the commercial information to indicate that a recent study of genetic variation of Federal Register as expeditiously as the petitioned action may be warranted. mitochondrial DNA, Wood et al. (2006) possible. Such findings are based on information found significant geographical contained in the petition, supporting The petition also requested that the structuring suggesting two distinct information submitted with the petition, Service consider an ‘‘intergrade zone’’ subspecies of western shovel-nosed and information otherwise available in between the Tucson shovel-nosed snake snake rather than four, combining our files at the time we make the and the Colorado Desert shovel-nosed western populations of C. o. occipitalis, finding. To the maximum extent snake as part of the Tucson shovel- the Mojave shovel-nosed snake, with C. practicable, we are to make this finding nosed snake’s range. An intergrade zone o. talpina, the Nevada shovel-nosed within 90 days of receipt of the petition is an area of overlap between the ranges snake; and eastern populations of C. o. and publish our notice of this finding of two subspecies where individuals occipitalis with C. o. annulata, the promptly in the Federal Register. may possess intermediate characters or Colorado Desert shovel-nosed snake, Our standard for ‘‘substantial traits of both subspecies. It is generally and C. o. klauberi. However, Wood et information,’’ as defined in the Code of recognized and accepted by al.’s inference was based on a single Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(b), practitioners of subspecies taxonomy genetic marker of mitochondrial DNA with regards to a 90-day petition finding that intergrade zones may exist between and did not include examination of is ‘‘that amount of information that the ranges of two subspecies where the nuclear markers, which would more would lead a reasonable person to diagnostic characters of both subspecies fully elucidate our understanding of the believe that the measure proposed in the may be found (Mayr 1942, 1963, 1969, taxonomic standing of this subspecies. petition may be warranted.’’ If we find 1970; Huxley 1943; Wake 1997, 2006; Therefore, we continue to accept the that substantial information was Rodrı´guez-Robles and De Jesus-Escobar currently accepted designation of the presented, we are required to promptly 2000; Isaac et al. 2004; Krysko and Judd subspecies C. o. klauberi. commence a status review of the 2006). Current practice in the scientific The Tucson shovel-nosed snake is a species. literature is to objectively describe the small snake (250–425 millimeters (mm) We evaluated the information ranges of different subspecies and any (9.84–16.73 inches (in)) total length) in provided by the petitioner in intergrade zones between them with the family Colubridae with a shovel- accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our narrative descriptions, maps, or both shaped snout, an inset lower jaw, and process for making this 90-day finding (e.g., Wake, 1997, 2006; Rodrı´guez- coloring that mimics coral snakes under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Robles and De Jesus-Escobar 2000; (Mahrdt et al. 2001, p. 731.1). The most 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our regulations is Mahrdt et al. 2001; Leache´ and Reeder, notable features of the Tucson shovel- limited to a determination of whether 2002; Krysko and Judd 2006). Following nosed snake distinguishing it from the the information in the petition meets the this practice, intergrade zones are other subspecies are (a) the red ‘‘substantial scientific and commercial identified, but not assigned to either of crossbands suffused with dark pigment, information’’ threshold (as mentioned the subspecies. As such, we find that making them appear brown or partly above). including all shovel-nosed snakes black, and (b) both black and red We received a petition, dated within the intergrade zone in the crossbands not encircling the body (CBD December 15, 2004, from the Center for subspecies taxon of the Tucson shovel- 2004, p. 2). Biological Diversity (CBD) requesting nosed snake would not be consistent Like other shovel-nosed snakes, the that we list the Tucson shovel-nosed with current scientific practice in Tucson shovel-nosed snake uses venom snake as threatened or endangered describing the ranges of the subspecies to capture arthropod prey (Rosen 2003).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Jul 28, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM 29JYP1 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 43907

The diet of shovel-nosed snakes consists shovel-nosed snake in Pima County was unsuitable as habitat for this subspecies. of scorpions, beetle larvae, spiders, in 1979, near the intersection of Avra The petition further claims that once an crickets and centipedes (Rosen et al. Valley Road and Sanders Road in the area has been plowed, or the soil has 1996, p. 22–23). Like the other Avra Valley (Rosen 2003, p. 10). been compacted by urbanization or subspecies, the Tucson shovel-nosed Although habitat still exists in Pima other factors, it is unknown whether the snake probably feeds on scorpions. County, the current distribution and habitat can ever be recovered and, if so, Glass (1972, p. 447) suggests that abundance in Pima County is unknown. how long it will take (CBD 2004, p. 10). Tucson shovel-nosed snakes may have According to the petition, most of the The petitioner cites a personal developed a resistance to scorpion currently occupied range of the Tucson communication with herpetologist Dr. venom. Rosen et al. (1996, p. 22) suggest shovel-nosed snake is believed to lie in Philip Rosen in which he pointed out that shovel-nosed snakes eat relatively southern Pinal County and Maricopa that full recovery of native vegetation to frequently. The authors (pp. 22–23) County. An intergrade zone occurs pre-disturbance conditions has not been further support this observation by between the range of the Colorado documented, and partial recovery of noting that individual shovel-nosed Desert shovel-nosed snake and the range reptile and invertebrate groups has also snakes in captivity each consumed five of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake in not been observed. We interpret partial to eight crickets per week, and showed Pima County (Klauber 1951, p. 159). recovery to mean either the re-invasion significant weight loss after a two- to Recent records of shovel-nosed snakes of the disturbed lands by reptile and three-week lapse in feeding. in Pima County have been from within invertebrate groups or an increase in Like the other three subspecies of the the intergrade zone. their populations following a decline western shovel-nosed snake, the Tucson associated with the disturbance. The shovel-nosed snake uses ‘‘sand Threats Analysis petitioner notes that post-disturbance swimming’’ as its primary locomotion. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), recovery (we presume of both vegetation The snake moves using a sideways and its implementing regulations (50 and wildlife) is possible with enough swaying motion while it is either on or CFR 424) set forth the procedures for time, but may not be practical because under the sand or loose soil (Stebbins adding species to the Federal Lists of it may not provide habitat for the 2003, p. 393). Shovel-nosed snakes are Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Tucson shovel-nosed snake before it is primarily nocturnal in activity, although and Plants. A species, subspecies, or extirpated from areas adjacent to those specimens have been documented as distinct population segment of rehabilitated habitats. The petitioner active during daylight hours. Shovel- vertebrate taxa may be determined to be provided no data to support such claims nosed snakes are predominantly active endangered or threatened due to one or regarding habitat recovery. at air temperatures between 70 and 90 more of the five factors described in To determine the historical and degrees Fahrenheit (21 and 32 degrees section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) Present or current distribution of Tucson shovel- Celsius), and from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. threatened destruction, modification, or nosed snake habitat, the petitioner (Klauber 1951, p. 187). Rosen et al. curtailment of habitat or range; (B) developed a model of the snake’s (1996, p. 21) have also observed that overutilization for commercial, potential habitat with the cooperation of shovel-nosed snakes have been recreational, scientific, or educational Dr. Rosen. The model was developed documented to be active in the morning purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) and refined based on Dr. Rosen’s and just before sunset. Rosen et al. inadequacy of existing regulatory professional knowledge of habitat (1996, p. 21) further note that activity mechanisms; or (E) other natural or conditions, the conditions at observed seems to be highest when summer and manmade factors affecting its continued locations, and descriptions of habitat spring temperatures are moderate, and existence. requirements from the literature. when the relative humidity is high. In making this 90-day finding, we Rosen (2003, p. 8) notes that Klauber (1951, p. 185) indicates that evaluated whether information on significant amounts of Tucson shovel- scattered sand hummocks, crowned threats to the Tucson shovel-nosed nosed snake habitat in the eastern with mesquite or other desert shrubs, snake, as presented in the petition, and portion of the Avra Valley in Pima are favorite refuges for shovel-nosed clarified by information readily County was converted from desert to snakes. Rosen (2003, p. 8) suggests that available in our files at the time of the either agricultural or urban the Tucson shovel-nosed snake is found petition review, is substantial, thereby development between 1954 and 1966, in more productive creosote-mesquite indicating that the petitioned action with many canals, wells, and field-edge floodplain environments, differing from may be warranted. Our evaluation of roads appearing in the interim. Rosen the habitats preferred by other this information is presented below. (2003, p. 7) also notes that traffic in the subspecies of the western shovel-nosed Avra Valley increased after the 1960s, A. Present or Threatened Destruction, snake. Rosen (2003, p. 8) describes the especially in the late 1970s, following Modification, or Curtailment of the associated soils of the Tucson shovel- urban and agricultural development. nosed snake as soft, sandy loams, with Species’ Habitat or Range Rosen (2003, p. 8) further indicates that sparse gravel. The petition states that the Tucson agricultural development was already The subspecies is historically known shovel-nosed snake is known only from widespread in the western portion of from Pima County in the Avra and Santa south central Arizona in Pima, Pinal, the Avra Valley by 1959. Cruz valleys and from southeastern and Maricopa counties, where it is Surveys for the Tucson shovel-nosed Maricopa County and southern Pinal dependent on Sonoran Desert scrub, snake began in the mid-to-late 1950s by County, including the Gila River Indian particularly areas with loose, sandy, Dr. Charles H. Lowe and his graduate Community. The area between the wind-blown soils (CBD 2004, p. 6; students at the University of Arizona, Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas Mattison 1989, p. 25). According to the with a peak in the 1960s (Rosen 2003, is believed to encompass the majority of petitioner, much of the habitat within p. 7). The petition refers to records the current range of this subspecies, the former range of the Tucson shovel- indicating the Tucson shovel-nosed particularly west of Tucson northward nosed snake has been converted to snake was reasonably abundant in the along Avra Valley to Pinal County, and agricultural fields and urban Avra Valley during the 1970s (Rosen westward into Maricopa County. The development, as well as new roads to 2003, p.10). The last verifiable record of last verifiable record of the Tucson access these areas, all of which are the Tucson shovel-nosed snake in the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Jul 28, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM 29JYP1 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS 43908 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules

Avra Valley was in 1979, near the (Pisano 2007). The town of Maricopa, scrub habitat upon which the Tucson intersection of Avra Valley Road and which is within the current range of the shovel-nosed snake currently depends. Sanders Road (Rosen 2003, p. 10). Tucson shovel-nosed snake in Pinal Dr. Phil Rosen has studied shovel-nosed Surveys for the subspecies were County, had a population of 4,855 in snakes in Arizona for 17 years and has conducted in the Avra Valley and part 2004, but is now one of the country’s coauthored one peer-reviewed journal of Pinal County in 2003, 2004 and 2007 fastest growing cities, and is planning article regarding the reproductive (Rosen 2003, p. 6; Rosen 2004, p. 2; for a population of 350,000 by 2025 ecology of C. occipitalis and coauthored Rosen 2007, p. 1). Surveys for shovel- (Holcombe 2005). Additionally, a 275- a literature review of both species. Dr. nosed snakes were also conducted on square-mile area of State Trust and Rosen has studied herpetology in the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument private lands centered on Florence American Southwest for almost 30 years in Pima County from 1987 through 1994 Junction, also in Pinal County, is being and has been instrumental in various (Rosen et al. 1996, pp. 6–7). planned for development (Grammage aspects of conservation of reptiles and Additionally, surveys have been 2006); approximately two thirds of this amphibians in the southwestern United conducted intermittently by various area falls within the current range of the States. Dr. Rosen has been active in researchers throughout the range of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. From July helping Pima County develop the Tucson shovel-nosed snake since the 2004 to July 2005, the population of Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, mid-1990s. During these recent surveys, Maricopa County increased by 137,000, particularly with regard to the reptiles the Tucson shovel-nosed snake has been which was the largest numerical and amphibians being considered for found in Pinal County (Rosen 2003, p. increase of any of the 3,141 counties in protection in the plan. Additionally, Dr. 9; Rosen 2007, p. 2). the nation during that period (The Rosen has worked with the Town of To determine the extent to which the Business Journal of Phoenix 2006). The Marana to help develop their Habitat Tucson shovel-nosed snake’s historical metropolitan areas of Tucson and Conservation Plan, which also considers habitat has been lost to urban or Phoenix, between which the snake’s the conservation of local reptiles. Both agricultural development, the petitioner current range exists, are forecasted to the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan combined the model of snake habitat meet and merge within a decade, with and the Town of Marana Habitat (CBD 2004, p. 13) with coverage of the population increasing from 5 Conservation Plan are considering urban and agricultural areas developed million today to upward of 10 million conservation of the Tucson shovel- by the Southwestern Regional Gap by 2040 (Reagor 2006). nosed snake, and Dr. Rosen has helped Analysis Project, which used imagery The petition also lists mining, off- them develop habitat models of what current to 2001. Their model of highway vehicles, construction of roads, constitutes Tucson shovel-nosed snake ‘‘remaining good habitat’’ (CBD 2004, p. and livestock grazing as potential habitat, including former habitat and 15) covers roughly half of the historical threats to the Tucson shovel-nosed remaining habitat. Although the petition range of the subspecies. Because of a snake and its habitat. According to the relies heavily on non-peer-reviewed lack of available soils data, their model petitioners (CBD 2004, p. 16), the Pima literature to support its claims regarding of historical habitat does not include the County Multi-Species Conservation Plan loss and degradation of Tucson shovel- entire range of the Tucson shovel-nosed (2004) indicates that off-highway nosed snake habitat, we find that the snake on lands in the east-central vehicles can crush snakes buried in the data presented, as well as clarifying portion of Pinal and Maricopa counties. sand or compact soils used by the snake, information in our files, relating to The areas of habitat that were not although the Pima County Multi-Species threats from agricultural and urban modeled comprise approximately 25 Conservation Plan (2004) does not development are credible and percent of the historical range of the provide specific evidence of this threat. substantial, indicating that listing the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. In the areas The petition further claims that Tucson shovel-nosed snake may be modeled, the petitioner indicated that construction of roads fragments snake warranted. 1,271,319 acres (ac) (514,503 hectares habitat, roads are a source of snake (ha)) of potential habitat occur within mortality, and that livestock grazing B. Overutilization for Commercial, the range of the Tucson shovel-nosed compacts soils and may reduce the Recreational, Scientific, or Educational snake. Of this area, 914,015 ac (369,902 snake’s prey base by reducing and Purposes ha) (72 percent) have been converted to altering vegetation cover. No data or either agriculture or urban development references were provided to support the The petition claims that scientific and (CBD 2004, p. 14). No estimates of claims that mining and livestock grazing commercial collection is not habitat loss were presented for areas not are potential threats. Additionally, the widespread, but that the Tucson shovel- evaluated by the models. petitioners provide no data to support nosed snake could be somewhat affected The petitioner concluded that human the claim that road construction by collection in limited areas. The population growth and habitat loss fragments snake habitat and roads are a petition further claims that enforcement predicted for Pima County also are source of snake mortality; however, we of laws prohibiting commercial likely to occur within the species’ range have information from our files which collection of reptiles is limited. While in Pinal and Maricopa counties, but did supports this claim. Papers by Rosen we accept the claim that the Tucson not provide supporting citations or and Lowe (1994, pp. 146–148) and shovel-nosed snake occurs within a other information (CBD 2004, p. 14). We Andrews and Gibbons (2005, pp. 776– limited distribution in Arizona, the concur, and have information readily 781) provide substantial information petition does not provide data to available in our files that substantiates indicating that road construction and substantiate the claim that the human population growth and habitat increased traffic on roads isolates subspecies may be threatened by loss are occurring, and will continue to habitat for snakes and increases snake collection. Therefore, we find that the occur, in Pinal and Maricopa counties. mortality. petition does not provide substantial For instance, population growth in Pinal We conclude that the petition information to support the claim that County is the sixth fastest among all provides substantial information to overutilization for commercial, counties in the United States, and the support the claim that agricultural and recreational, scientific, or educational current population of 313,000 is urban development present direct and purposes may pose a significant threat predicted to grow to 600,000 by 2015 indirect threats to the Sonoran Desert to the Tucson shovel-nosed snake.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Jul 28, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM 29JYP1 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules 43909

C. Disease or Predation shovel-nosed snake’s historical range the recent creation of the Ironwood The petitioner presented no data that (including the intergrade zone) occurs Forest National Monument, which is diseases affect Tucson shovel-nosed on lands administered by the State of administered by the BLM, provides the snakes. The petitioner provided data Arizona. The percentage of State of Tucson shovel-nosed snake possible that predation by native wildlife occurs Arizona lands within the current range protections. Additionally, we are aware on Colorado Desert shovel-nosed snakes (and excluding the intergrade zone) was of BLM lands between Tucson and (Funk 1965, p. 16; Mahrdt and Banta not presented and is unknown to the Florence, Arizona, that may support 1996, p. 81). It is likely that predation Service. The State of Arizona currently habitat for the Tucson shovel-nosed also occurs on Tucson shovel-nosed has no regulations or programs to snake for which the petitioner provided protect the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. no information on status or threats. snakes since most of the native wildlife The petitioner pointed out that the The BLM currently has no regulations occurs within the range of both Federal Enabling Act for Arizona and to protect the Tucson shovel-nosed subspecies; however, the petitioner the State Constitution limit conservation snake, does not survey for the snake on provided no data to support predation on State lands by requiring that use of its habitat, and does not consider as a significant impact to populations of the lands maximize the economic value impacts on the subspecies during Tucson shovel-nosed snakes. Therefore, of State lands to benefit schools. The project-specific analyses. BLM lands are we find that the petition does not petition further describes the Arizona secure from agricultural and urban provide substantial information that Preserve Initiative (HB 2555) passed in development; however, as previously listing the subspecies due to disease or 1996, which establishes a process by mentioned, the petitioner claims that predation may be warranted. which State lands can be leased or off-highway vehicle use, livestock D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory purchased for conservation purposes; grazing, roads, and mine leasing are all Mechanisms however, the petitioner claims that the potential threats to Tucson shovel-nosed legality of this law is in question snakes and their habitat. The petitioner The petition claims the Tucson because of the Arizona State admitted that the extent of these threats shovel-nosed snake is not currently Constitutional requirement to maximize and their impacts on the Tucson shovel- afforded any State or Federal protection economic value. The petitioner also nosed snake have not been studied, but and is not listed on any State or Federal claims that even without its legality they expect that they are likely list of species of concern. The petitioner issues, the Arizona Preserve Initiative impacting the snake to some unknown indicated that, according to the Arizona provides little protection for the Tucson level. Impacts from these activities may Game and Fish Department’s Wildlife shovel-nosed snake because it only exist; however, the petition provides no Management Program Strategic Plan for allows for the lease and purchase of data to support these claims. the Years 2001–2006, the Tucson State land. The Arizona Preserve The petitioner points to the perceived shovel-nosed snake is not included on Initiative does not require any purchase inadequacies in the Pima County Multi- Arizona’s Wildlife of Special Concern or lease to conserve habitat for the species Conservation Plan (referred to in list (Arizona Game and Fish Department snake. Although State lands currently the petition as the Sonoran Desert 2001). The petitioner further stated that, provide open space, there are no known Conservation Plan) and the Town of even if the Tucson shovel-nosed snake plans to require protection of Tucson Marana Habitat Conservation Plan as was considered Wildlife of Special shovel-nosed snake habitat on State regulatory mechanisms. Because neither Concern, it would receive little lands, and no other protections are of these plans is finalized, we will not protection because the list only serves to afforded the snake on State lands. explore the adequacies of these plans as notify the public of the species’ status The petition claims that enforcement possible regulatory mechanisms for the and does not require any conservation of laws prohibiting commercial snake. or management actions (Arizona Game collection of reptiles is limited. State The petition provides no information and Fish Department 2001). Since we law limits the collection of non- about existing regulatory mechanisms received the petition, the Arizona Game protected snakes to no more than four on lands managed by the Gila River and Fish Department has developed individuals of a species per year with a Indian Community, which is within the Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife valid hunting license. If more than four current range of the Tucson shovel- Conservation Strategy: 2005–2015 are to be collected (e.g., for research nosed snake. The petition does state that (CWCS), in which the Tucson shovel- purposes), a scientific collecting permit 17 percent of the snake’s habitat is nosed snake has been identified as a must be obtained. It is illegal to under the control of the Tohono Species of Greatest Conservation Need commercially sell, barter, or trade any O’odham Nation. Most of the Tohono for which immediate conservation native Arizona wildlife. While we are O’odham lands are in Pima County west action is necessary (Tier 1b under the aware that the Arizona Game and Fish of Tucson, with a small portion falling Vulnerable category) (Arizona Game and Department enforces these laws to the within Pinal and Maricopa counties. All Fish Department 2006, Appendix A p. 3, extent that it can, it is likely that some of these lands are within the intergrade Appendix K p. 139). However, the level of illegal collection of shovel- zone, which we have excluded from CWCS was not designed to replace or nosed snakes occurs. We do not, consideration. duplicate the Department’s existing however, have information indicating We have reviewed the information wildlife management strategic plan the level of this illegal activity, nor how provided in the petition as well as all (Arizona Game and Fish Department it impacts the population as a whole. sources cited in the petition. Many of 2001), nor does it provide further The petition states that 16 percent of the regulatory mechanisms discussed regulatory protection for the snake. It the Tucson shovel-nosed snake’s habitat pertain to lands that are in the serves only to prioritize funds and guide occurs on Bureau of Land Management intergrade zone of the snake, which we implementation of conservation (BLM) lands, most of which falls within have excluded from this analysis. For activities for Arizona’s vulnerable the intergrade zone of the snake. The the remaining areas within the snake’s wildlife (Arizona Game and Fish intergrade zone is an area not included range, we conclude that the petition and Department 2006, p. 9). in this analysis (see Background). Of the information in our files present The petitioner claims that remaining area (not within the substantial information that existing approximately 21 percent of the Tucson intergrade zone), the petition states that regulatory mechanisms may be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Jul 28, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM 29JYP1 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS 43910 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules

inadequate to prevent the progressive applicable court decisions pertaining to FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION decline of populations of the Tucson 90-day findings, we find that the CONTACT section). shovel-nosed snake and its habitat. petition presents substantial scientific Author information indicating that listing the E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Tuscon shovel-nosed snake may be The primary author of this notice is Affecting the Species’ Continued the Arizona Ecological Services Office Existence warranted. Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) (see FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The petition claims that severe of the Act is limited to a determination CONTACT section). weather, particularly prolonged of whether the information in the Authority drought, has the potential to negatively petition presents ‘‘substantial scientific impact Tucson shovel-nosed snake and commercial information,’’ which is The authority for this action is section populations. The petitioner described interpreted in our regulations as ‘‘that 4 of the Endangered Species Act of prolonged drought as a potential reason amount of information that would lead 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et that no Tucson shovel-nosed snakes a reasonable person to believe that the seq.). were located in the Avra Valley within measure proposed in the petition may Dated: July 14, 2008. the historical range in Pima County be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). Kenneth Stansell, during extensive searches by local The petitioners presented substantial researchers (Rosen 2003, p. 16). No data Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife information indicating that the Tucson Service. to support this claim were provided by shovel-nosed snake may be threatened the petitioner or by Rosen (2003), and [FR Doc. E8–17221 Filed 7–28–08; 8:45 am] by Factors A and D throughout the although we have information in our BILLING CODE 4310–55–P entire range of the subspecies. The files indicating that conditions in the petitioners did not present substantial United States (Intergovernmental Panel information that Factors B, C and E are on Climate Change 2007, p. 9), and in DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR currently, or in the future, considered a the southwestern United States in threat to this species. Based on this Fish and Wildlife Service particular (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181) review and evaluation, we find that the are likely to be drier and warmer in the petition has presented substantial 50 CFR Part 17 near future, we have no information scientific or commercial information indicating such changes will negatively impact the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. that listing the Tucson shovel-nosed [FWS–R8–ES–2007–0008; 92210–1117– The petitioner also claims that, in snake throughout all or a portion of its 0000–FY08 B4] addition to prolonged drought, climate range may be warranted due to current change or habitat modification that and future threats under Factors A and RIN 1018-AV07 results in permanently wetter D. As such, we are initiating a status Endangered and Threatened Wildlife environmental conditions could also review to determine whether listing the and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for lead to further declines of this arid- Tucson shovel-nosed snake under the adapted subspecies, particularly under Act is warranted. We will issue a 12- the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat prevailing conditions in which only month finding as to whether any of the (Dipodomys merriami parvus) petitioned actions are warranted. To fragments of the original distribution AGENCY: ensure that the status review is Fish and Wildlife Service, remain occupied. However, the petition Interior. provides no data to support the claim comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of that climate change will result in wetter comment period. environmental conditions within the regarding the Tuscon shovel-nosed snake. current range of the species, nor does it SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and provide data to support the claims that It is important to note that the Wildlife Service (Service) announce the the Tucson shovel-nosed snake ‘‘substantial information’’ standard for a reopening of the public comment period responds negatively to wetter 90-day finding is in contrast to the Act’s on the June 19, 2007, proposed rule (72 environmental conditions and that ‘‘best scientific and commercial data’’ FR 33808) to revise critical habitat for fragmented habitat would exacerbate standard that applies to a 12-month the San Bernardino kangaroo rat negative impacts due to wetter finding as to whether a petitioned action (Dipodomys merriami parvus) under the conditions. Therefore, we do not find is warranted. A 90-day finding is not a Endangered Species Act of 1973, as that the petition provides substantial status assessment of the species and amended (Act). This action will provide information to support the claim that does not constitute a status review all interested parties with an additional prolonged drought or climate change under the Act. Our final determination opportunity to submit written pose significant threats to the Tucson as to whether a petitioned action is comments on the proposed revised shovel-nosed snake. warranted is not made until we have designation, draft economic analysis completed a thorough status review of Finding (DEA), and addendum to the DEA. the species, which is conducted Comments previously submitted need We have reviewed the petition and following a positive 90-day finding. not be resubmitted as they are already the literature cited in the petition, and Because the Act’s standards for 90-day incorporated into the public record and evaluated the information to determine and 12-month findings are different, as will be fully considered in any final whether the sources cited support the described above, a positive 90-day decision. claims made in the petition. We also finding does not mean that the 12- reviewed reliable information that was month finding also will be positive. DATES: We are reopening the comment readily available in our files to clarify period and will accept information References Cited and verify information in the petition. received or postmarked on or before Based on our evaluation of the A complete list of all references cited August 13, 2008. information provided in the petition, is available, upon request, from the ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and in accordance with recent Arizona Ecological Services Office (see by one of the following methods:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Jul 28, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM 29JYP1 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS