Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Upper Tidal Potomac River Population of the Northern Water Snake (Nerodia sipedon) as an Endangered Distinct Population Segment, 70715-70717 [E6-20542]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
United States (US) Footnotes
*
*
*
*
*
USxxx In Hawaii, the frequencies 120.65
MHz and 127.05 MHz may be authorized to
non-Federal aircraft stations for air-to-air
communications as specified in 47 CFR
87.187.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 87—AVIATION SERVICES
3. The authority citation for part 87
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303 and 307(e),
unless otherwise noted.
4. Amend § 87.187 by adding new
paragraphs (gg) and (hh) to read as
follows:
§ 87.187
Frequencies.
PWALKER on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(gg)(1) The frequency 120.650 MHz is
authorized for air-to-air
communications for aircraft over and
within five nautical miles of the
shoreline of the Hawaiian Island of
Maui.
(2) The frequency 121.950 MHz is
authorized for air-to-air use for aircraft
over and within five nautical miles of
the shoreline of the Hawaiian Island of
Molokai.
(3) The frequency 122.850 MHz is
authorized for air-to-air use for aircraft
over and within five nautical miles of
the shoreline of the Hawaiian Island of
Oahu.
(4) The frequency 122.850 MHz is
authorized for aircraft over and within
five nautical miles of the shoreline of
the Hawaiian Island of Hawaii when
aircraft are south and east of the 215
degree radial of very high frequency
omni-directional radio range of Hilo
International Airport.
(5) The frequency 127.050 MHz is
authorized for air-to-air use for aircraft
over and within five nautical miles of
the shoreline of the Hawaiian Island of
Hawaii when aircraft are north and west
of the 215 degree radial of very high
frequency omni-directional radio range
of Hilo International Airport.
(6) The frequency 127.050 MHz is
authorized for air-to-air use for aircraft
over and within five nautical miles of
the Hawaiian Island of Kauai.
(hh)(1) The frequency 121.95 MHz is
authorized for air-to-air
communications for aircraft within the
area bounded by the following
coordinates (all coordinates are
referenced to North American Datum
1983 (NAD83)):
33–46–00 N. Lat.; 118–27–00 W. Long.
33–47–00 N. Lat.; 118–12–00 W. Long.
33–40–00 N. Lat.; 118–00–00 W. Long.
33–35–00 N. Lat.; 118–08–00 W. Long.
34–00–00 N. Lat.; 118–26–00 W. Long.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:05 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
(2) The frequency 122.775 MHz is
authorized for air-to-air
communications for aircraft within the
area bounded by the following
coordinates (all coordinates are
referenced to North American Datum
1983 (NAD83)):
34–22–00 N. Lat.; 118–30–00 W. Long.
34–35–00 N. Lat.; 118–15–00 W. Long.
34–27–00 N. Lat.; 118–15–00 W. Long.
34–16–00 N. Lat.; 118–35–00 W. Long.
34–06–00 N. Lat.; 118–35–00 W. Long.
34–05–00 N. Lat.; 118–50–00 W. Long.
(3) The frequency 123.30 MHz is
authorized for air-to-air
communications for aircraft within the
area bounded by the following
coordinates (all coordinates are
referenced to North American Datum
1983 (NAD83)):
34–08–00 N. Lat.; 118–00–00 W. Long.
34–10–00 N. Lat.; 117–08–00 W. Long.
34–00–00 N. Lat.; 117–08–00 W. Long.
33–53–00 N. Lat.; 117–42–00 W. Long.
33–58–00 N. Lat.; 118–00–00 W. Long.
(4) The frequency 123.50 MHz is
authorized for air-to-air
communications for aircraft within the
area bounded by the following
coordinates (all coordinates are
referenced to North American Datum
1983 (NAD83)):
33–53–00 N. Lat.; 117–37–00 W. Long.
34–00–00 N. Lat.; 117–15–00 W. Long.
34–00–00 N. Lat.; 117–07–00 W. Long.
33–28–00 N. Lat.; 116–55–00 W. Long.
33–27–00 N. Lat.; 117–12–00 W. Long.
(5) The frequency 123.50 MHz is
authorized for air-to-air
communications for aircraft within the
area bounded by the following
coordinates (all coordinates are
referenced to North American Datum
1983 (NAD83)):
33–50–00 N. Lat.; 117–48–00 W. Long.
33–51–00 N. Lat.; 117–41–00 W. Long.
33–38–00 N. Lat.; 117–30–00 W. Long.
33–30–00 N. Lat.; 117–30–00 W. Long.
33–30–00 N. Lat.; 117–49–00 W. Long.
5. Amend § 87.215 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 87.215
Supplemental Eligibility.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Only one unicom will be
authorized to operate at an airport
which does not have a control tower,
RCO or FAA flight service station that
effectively controls traffic at the airport
(i.e., where the unicom frequency is not
the published common traffic advisory
frequency). At an airport which has a
part-time or full-time control tower,
RCO or FAA flight service station that
effectively controls traffic at the airport,
the one unicom limitation does not
apply and the airport operator and all
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70715
aviation services organizations may be
licensed to operate a unicom on the
assigned frequency.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E6–20451 Filed 12–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants: 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Upper Tidal
Potomac River Population of the
Northern Water Snake (Nerodia
sipedon) as an Endangered Distinct
Population Segment
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION:
Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the
distinct vertebrate population segment
(DPS) of the northern water snake
(Nerodia sipedon) in the upper tidal
Potomac River as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We find the petition
does not provide substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action is warranted.
Therefore, we will not initiate a further
status review in response to this
petition. We ask the public to submit to
us any new information that becomes
available concerning the status of this
population of the northern water snake
or threats to it.
The finding announced in this
document was made on December 6,
2006.
DATES:
The complete file for this
finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours, at the
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 177 Admiral
Cochrane Drive, Annapolis, Maryland
21401. Submit new information,
materials, comments, or questions to us
at the above address.
ADDRESSES:
John
Wolflin, Field Supervisor, Chesapeake
Bay Field Office (see ADDRESSES)
(telephone 410–573–4574; facsimile
410–269–0832).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
70716
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
PWALKER on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Background
Species Information
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 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
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition
and information 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 the finding
promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial
information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90day 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 is presented,
we are required to promptly commence
a status review of the species.
In making this finding, we relied on
information provided by the petitioner
and evaluated this information in
accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our
process of making a 90-day finding
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and
§ 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited
to a determination of whether the
information in the petition meets the
‘‘substantial information’’ threshold.
On November 7, 2000, we received a
formal petition dated November 1, 2000,
from Dr. Richard M. Mitchell requesting
that we emergency list the northern
water snake population found in the
upper tidal Potomac River as a distinct
population segment (DPS) under the
Act. The petition included a report from
a study performed by Dr. James M. Beers
and Dr. Mitchell from July to
September, 2000, entitled ‘‘A
Herpetofaunal Survey of the Upper
Tidal Potomac River and its Associated
Estuaries.’’
Action on the petition was precluded
by court orders and settlement
agreements for other listing actions that
required nearly all of our listing funds
for fiscal year 2001. However, the
Service did evaluate the need for
emergency listing based on the
information provided in the initial
petition and its attached report and
determined that the threats described
did not appear to constitute immediate
threats of a magnitude that would justify
emergency listing. A letter was sent to
the petitioner on January 23, 2001,
explaining this determination.
The northern water snake was first
described by Linnaeus in 1758. The
species is widely distributed in eastern
North America, from southern Canada
south through the Carolina and Georgia
Piedmont, to the Gulf of Mexico, and
west to eastern Colorado (Conant 1975,
p. 145). This species occurs in most
freshwater habitats within its range,
inhabiting natural water bodies,
wetlands, and even manmade
impoundments (Dorcas and Gibbons
2004, p. 183). Northern water snakes
tend to exhibit high site fidelity,
although snakes in linear habitats such
as rivers tend to wander more than
snakes in discrete habitats such as
ponds (Fraker 1990, pp. 666–669). The
northern water snake is found in a
diversity of habitats, and likewise
consumes a diversity of prey. In fact,
Gibbons and Dorcas (2004, p. 186) state,
‘‘the documented diversity of prey
species consumed by N. sipedon is
greater than for any other water snake
* * * [this] clearly indicates that N.
sipedon is primarily an aquatic-feeding
generalist that in most instances
probably eats whatever is readily
available.’’
The northern water snake is a
moderately sized, nonvenomous water
snake, and is highly variable in both
dorsal and ventral color patterns (Dorcas
and Gibbons 2004, p. 178). Selective
pressure, namely predation, determines
which banding patterns are exhibited in
specific populations (Camin and Ehrlich
1958 in Beatson 1975, p. 241). This
natural selection results in individuals
with cryptic coloration that is highly
specialized for their habitat. Coloration,
when broken down into the most basic
classes, ranges from the regularly
banded morph, to a reduced pattern
morph, to a uniformly unbanded morph
(King and Lawson 1995, p. 885). Most
northern water snakes meet the standard
description (i.e., the regularly banded
morph); however, ‘‘the range of
variability cannot be overstated’’
(Dorcas and Gibbons 2004, p. 179).
Focusing on the geographic area of the
petitioned action, the northern water
snake is found throughout Maryland
and Virginia, and its distribution in the
Washington DC Metropolitan area of the
Potomac River appears concentrated
from just north of Great Falls National
Park southward to just north of
Indianhead, Maryland (Mitchell 1994, p.
237).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:05 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
We consider a species for listing
under the Act if available information
indicates such an action might be
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
warranted. ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the
Act as including any subspecies of fish
or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife that
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). We, along with the National
Marine Fisheries Service (now the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration—Fisheries), developed
the Policy Regarding the Recognition of
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), to help
us in determining what constitutes a
DPS. The policy identifies three
elements that are to be considered
regarding the status of a possible DPS.
These elements include: (1) The
discreteness of the population in
relation to the remainder of the species
to which it belongs; (2) the significance
of the population to the species to
which it belongs; and (3) the population
segment’s conservation status in relation
to the Act’s standards for listing. The
following is our evaluation of these
elements in relation to the petitioned
entity, the upper tidal Potomac River
population of the northern water snake.
Discreteness: The DPS policy states
that a population segment of a
vertebrate species may be considered
discrete if it satisfies either one of the
following two conditions: (1) It must be
markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) it
must be delimited by international
governmental boundaries within which
difference in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation
status, or regulatory mechanisms exist
that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
The petitioner claims that the color
pattern of the upper tidal Potomac River
population of the northern water snake
is different from dorsal patterns of other
water snakes in Virginia. However, as
referenced earlier, the northern water
snake is highly variable in both dorsal
and ventral color patterns (Dorcas and
Gibbons 2004, p. 178). Therefore, color
pattern alone does not provide sufficient
information to support marked
separation from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of physical
factors.
In summary, the petitioner does not
present any evidence to indicate that the
species is markedly separated from
other populations of the same taxon by
physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors, nor is it delimited by
an international governmental
boundary. The northern water snake
within the upper tidal Potomac River
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Proposed Rules
therefore does not meet the
‘‘discreteness’’ criterion.
Significance: Pursuant to our DPS
policy, in addition to our consideration
that a population segment is discrete,
we further consider its biological and
ecological significance to the taxon to
which it belongs, within the context that
the DPS policy be used ‘‘sparingly’’
while encouraging the conservation of
genetic diversity (61 FR 4722; February
7, 1996). This consideration may
include, but is not limited to: (1)
Evidence of the persistence of the
discrete population segment in an
ecological setting that is unique for the
taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the
population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon;
(3) evidence that the population
segment represents the only surviving
natural occurrence of a taxon that may
be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its
historical range; and (4) evidence that
the discrete population segment differs
markedly from other populations of the
species in its genetic characteristics.
The petition does not address these
factors. Therefore, based on the lack of
information in the petition and the
information readily available in our
files, the upper tidal Potomac River
population of the northern water snake
is not significant in relation to the
remainder of the taxon.
PWALKER on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Finding
We reviewed the information
presented in the petition, and evaluated
that information in relation to
information readily available in our
files. On the basis of our review, we find
that the petition does not provide
substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that the upper
tidal Potomac River population of the
northern water snake constitutes a valid
DPS. This finding is based on the lack
of substantial evidence indicating this
population meets the discreteness
element of the DPS policy and the lack
of substantial scientific information that
the upper tidal Potomac River
population is significant in relation to
the remainder of the taxon. Therefore,
we conclude that the upper tidal
Potomac River population of the
northern water snake is not a listable
entity pursuant to section 3(15) of the
Act. We will not be commencing a
status review in response to this
petition. However, we encourage
interested parties to continue to gather
data that will assist with the
conservation of the species. Information
regarding this species may be submitted
at any time to the Field Supervisor,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:05 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
Chesapeake Bay Field Office (see
section).
ADDRESSES
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available, upon request, from
the Chesapeake Bay Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this notice is
Charisa Morris, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office
(see ADDRESSES section).
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: November 28, 2006.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. E6–20542 Filed 12–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List the Cerulean Warbler
(Dendroica cerulea) as Threatened
With Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of a 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list
the cerulean warbler (Dendroica
cerulea) as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The petition also asked
that critical habitat be designated for the
species. After reviewing the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the petitioned
action is not warranted. We ask the
public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available
concerning the status of, or threats to,
the species. This information will help
us monitor and encourage the
conservation of this species.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on November 28,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials
received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the development
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70717
of this 12-month finding, will be
available for inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the Columbia Ecological
Services Field Office, 101 Park DeVille
Drive, Suite A, Columbia, Missouri
65203. Submit new information,
materials, comments, or questions
concerning this species to the Service at
the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Scott, Supervisor (see
ADDRESSES), by telephone at 573–234–
2132, by facsimile at 573–234–2181, or
by electronic mail at
charlie_scott@fws.gov. Individuals who
are hearing-impaired or speechimpaired may call the Federal Relay
Service at 1–800–877–8339 for TTY
assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for
any petition to revise the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants that contains substantial
scientific or commercial information
that the petitioned action may be
warranted, we make a finding within 12
months of the date of the receipt of the
petition on whether the petitioned
action is: (a) Not warranted, (b)
warranted, or (c) warranted, but that the
immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to
determine whether any species is
threatened or endangered, and
expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Species. Such 12-month findings are to
be published promptly in the Federal
Register. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that a petition for which the
requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded shall be treated
as though resubmitted on the date of
such finding, requiring a subsequent
finding to be made within 12 months.
Previous Federal Actions
We added the cerulean warbler to our
former Category 2 list of candidate
species on November 21, 1991 (56 FR
58804). Category 2 candidate species
were those species for which we
possessed data indicating that proposing
to list them as endangered or threatened
was possibly appropriate, but for which
conclusive data on biological
vulnerability and threat were not
available at that time to support
proposed rules. Category 1 candidate
species were those for which we
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70715-70717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20542]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Upper Tidal Potomac River Population of the
Northern Water Snake (Nerodia sipedon) as an Endangered Distinct
Population Segment
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the distinct vertebrate population
segment (DPS) of the northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) in the
upper tidal Potomac River as endangered under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find the petition does not provide
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action is warranted. Therefore, we will not initiate a
further status review in response to this petition. We ask the public
to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning
the status of this population of the northern water snake or threats to
it.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on December 6,
2006.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 177
Admiral Cochrane Drive, Annapolis, Maryland 21401. Submit new
information, materials, comments, or questions to us at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Wolflin, Field Supervisor,
Chesapeake Bay Field Office (see ADDRESSES) (telephone 410-573-4574;
facsimile 410-269-0832).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 70716]]
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 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 the petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition and
information 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 the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial 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 is presented, we are required to promptly commence a status
review of the species.
In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the
petitioner and evaluated this information in accordance with 50 CFR
424.14(b). Our process of making a 90-day finding under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Sec. 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited
to a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the
``substantial information'' threshold.
On November 7, 2000, we received a formal petition dated November
1, 2000, from Dr. Richard M. Mitchell requesting that we emergency list
the northern water snake population found in the upper tidal Potomac
River as a distinct population segment (DPS) under the Act. The
petition included a report from a study performed by Dr. James M. Beers
and Dr. Mitchell from July to September, 2000, entitled ``A
Herpetofaunal Survey of the Upper Tidal Potomac River and its
Associated Estuaries.''
Action on the petition was precluded by court orders and settlement
agreements for other listing actions that required nearly all of our
listing funds for fiscal year 2001. However, the Service did evaluate
the need for emergency listing based on the information provided in the
initial petition and its attached report and determined that the
threats described did not appear to constitute immediate threats of a
magnitude that would justify emergency listing. A letter was sent to
the petitioner on January 23, 2001, explaining this determination.
Species Information
The northern water snake was first described by Linnaeus in 1758.
The species is widely distributed in eastern North America, from
southern Canada south through the Carolina and Georgia Piedmont, to the
Gulf of Mexico, and west to eastern Colorado (Conant 1975, p. 145).
This species occurs in most freshwater habitats within its range,
inhabiting natural water bodies, wetlands, and even manmade
impoundments (Dorcas and Gibbons 2004, p. 183). Northern water snakes
tend to exhibit high site fidelity, although snakes in linear habitats
such as rivers tend to wander more than snakes in discrete habitats
such as ponds (Fraker 1990, pp. 666-669). The northern water snake is
found in a diversity of habitats, and likewise consumes a diversity of
prey. In fact, Gibbons and Dorcas (2004, p. 186) state, ``the
documented diversity of prey species consumed by N. sipedon is greater
than for any other water snake * * * [this] clearly indicates that N.
sipedon is primarily an aquatic-feeding generalist that in most
instances probably eats whatever is readily available.''
The northern water snake is a moderately sized, nonvenomous water
snake, and is highly variable in both dorsal and ventral color patterns
(Dorcas and Gibbons 2004, p. 178). Selective pressure, namely
predation, determines which banding patterns are exhibited in specific
populations (Camin and Ehrlich 1958 in Beatson 1975, p. 241). This
natural selection results in individuals with cryptic coloration that
is highly specialized for their habitat. Coloration, when broken down
into the most basic classes, ranges from the regularly banded morph, to
a reduced pattern morph, to a uniformly unbanded morph (King and Lawson
1995, p. 885). Most northern water snakes meet the standard description
(i.e., the regularly banded morph); however, ``the range of variability
cannot be overstated'' (Dorcas and Gibbons 2004, p. 179).
Focusing on the geographic area of the petitioned action, the
northern water snake is found throughout Maryland and Virginia, and its
distribution in the Washington DC Metropolitan area of the Potomac
River appears concentrated from just north of Great Falls National Park
southward to just north of Indianhead, Maryland (Mitchell 1994, p.
237).
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
We consider a species for listing under the Act if available
information indicates such an action might be warranted. ``Species'' is
defined by the Act as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or
plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). We, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service (now
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Fisheries),
developed the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), to help us in
determining what constitutes a DPS. The policy identifies three
elements that are to be considered regarding the status of a possible
DPS. These elements include: (1) The discreteness of the population in
relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; (2) the
significance of the population to the species to which it belongs; and
(3) the population segment's conservation status in relation to the
Act's standards for listing. The following is our evaluation of these
elements in relation to the petitioned entity, the upper tidal Potomac
River population of the northern water snake.
Discreteness: The DPS policy states that a population segment of a
vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either
one of the following two conditions: (1) It must be markedly separated
from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) it must be
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
difference in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
The petitioner claims that the color pattern of the upper tidal
Potomac River population of the northern water snake is different from
dorsal patterns of other water snakes in Virginia. However, as
referenced earlier, the northern water snake is highly variable in both
dorsal and ventral color patterns (Dorcas and Gibbons 2004, p. 178).
Therefore, color pattern alone does not provide sufficient information
to support marked separation from other populations of the same taxon
as a consequence of physical factors.
In summary, the petitioner does not present any evidence to
indicate that the species is markedly separated from other populations
of the same taxon by physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors, nor is it delimited by an international governmental boundary.
The northern water snake within the upper tidal Potomac River
[[Page 70717]]
therefore does not meet the ``discreteness'' criterion.
Significance: Pursuant to our DPS policy, in addition to our
consideration that a population segment is discrete, we further
consider its biological and ecological significance to the taxon to
which it belongs, within the context that the DPS policy be used
``sparingly'' while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity
(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). This consideration may include, but is
not limited to: (1) Evidence of the persistence of the discrete
population segment in an ecological setting that is unique for the
taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the population segment would result in
a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the
population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of
a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population
outside its historical range; and (4) evidence that the discrete
population segment differs markedly from other populations of the
species in its genetic characteristics.
The petition does not address these factors. Therefore, based on
the lack of information in the petition and the information readily
available in our files, the upper tidal Potomac River population of the
northern water snake is not significant in relation to the remainder of
the taxon.
Finding
We reviewed the information presented in the petition, and
evaluated that information in relation to information readily available
in our files. On the basis of our review, we find that the petition
does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information to
indicate that the upper tidal Potomac River population of the northern
water snake constitutes a valid DPS. This finding is based on the lack
of substantial evidence indicating this population meets the
discreteness element of the DPS policy and the lack of substantial
scientific information that the upper tidal Potomac River population is
significant in relation to the remainder of the taxon. Therefore, we
conclude that the upper tidal Potomac River population of the northern
water snake is not a listable entity pursuant to section 3(15) of the
Act. We will not be commencing a status review in response to this
petition. However, we encourage interested parties to continue to
gather data that will assist with the conservation of the species.
Information regarding this species may be submitted at any time to the
Field Supervisor, Chesapeake Bay Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available, upon
request, from the Chesapeake Bay Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this notice is Charisa Morris, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: November 28, 2006.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E6-20542 Filed 12-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
