Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Petition To Delist the Hualapai Mexican Vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis), 28094-28097 [E8-10906]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 95 (Thursday, May 15, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28094-28097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10906]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R2-ES-2008-0037; 92220-1113-0000-C5]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
Petition To Delist the Hualapai Mexican Vole (Microtus mexicanus 
hualpaiensis)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), make a 90-
day finding on a petition to remove the Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus 
mexicanus hualpaiensis) from the Federal List of Threatened and 
Endangered Wildlife and Plants pursuant to the Endangered Species Act 
(Act). We find that the petition presents substantial information 
indicating that delisting this mammal may be warranted. We are 
initiating a status review to determine if delisting this subspecies is 
warranted. We are requesting submission of any information on the 
Hualapai Mexican vole relevant to its listing status under the Act. 
Following this review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the 
petition.

DATES: This finding was made on May 15, 2008. To be considered in the 
12-month finding on this petition, comments and information should be 
submitted to us by July 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments and materials to us by one 
of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: Docket FWS-R2-ES-2008-0037, Division of Policy and Directives 
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments Solicited 
section below for more information).
    You may obtain copies of the petition, reports, and reviews of 
reports upon which this 90-day finding is based by visiting the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov or our Web site at 
https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/, or by contacting the Arizona 
Ecological Services Field Office at the address or contact numbers 
under ADDRESSES.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office; by 
telephone at 602/242-0210; or by facsimile at 602/242-2513. Persons who 
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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. To 
the maximum extent practicable, we must make this finding within 90 
days of receipt of the petition, and publish the finding promptly in 
the Federal Register.
    Our review of a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act 
and 50 CFR 424.14(b) is limited to a determination of whether the 
information in the petition meets the ``substantial information'' 
threshold. ``Substantial information'' is defined in section 424.14(b) 
of our regulations as ``that amount of information that would lead a 
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition 
may be warranted.'' Petitioners need not prove that the petitioned 
action is warranted to support a ``substantial'' finding; instead, the 
key consideration in evaluating a petition for substantiality involves 
demonstration of the reliability and adequacy of the information 
supporting the action advocated by the petition.
    We have to satisfy the Act's requirement that we use the best 
available science to make our decisions. However, we do not conduct 
additional research at this point, nor do we subject the petition to 
rigorous critical review. Rather, at the 90-day finding stage, we 
accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the 
information, to the extent that they appear to be based on accepted 
scientific principles (such as citing published and peer reviewed 
articles, or studies done in accordance with valid methodologies), 
unless we have specific information to the contrary. Our finding 
considers whether the petition states a reasonable case on its face 
that delisting may be warranted. Thus, our 90-day finding expresses no 
view as to the ultimate issue of whether the species should no longer 
be classified as a threatened species. We make no determinations as to 
the value, accuracy, completeness, or veracity of the petition. The 
contents of this finding summarize that information that was available 
to us at the time of the petition review.
    In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the 
petitioner and information available in our files at the time we 
reviewed the petition, and we evaluated that information in accordance 
with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making a 90-day finding under 
section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 424.14(b) of our regulations 
is limited to a determination of whether the information contained in 
the petition meets the ``substantial information'' threshold.
    On August 23, 2004, we received a petition dated August 18, 2004, 
from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD 2004) to delist the 
Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis). The petition 
(AGFD 2004, pp. 4-6) states that: (1) The subspecies occurs over a much 
greater area and in higher numbers than previously thought; (2) it is 
likely that all populations referred to as M. m. hualpaiensis, along 
with other populations of the species in Arizona, should be referred to 
as M. m. mogollonensis; and (3) the threats faced by this more 
widespread taxon do not indicate that listing under the Act is 
warranted.

Species Information

    The Mexican vole is a cinnamon-brown, mouse-sized rodent 
approximately 5.5 inches (14 cm) long with a short tail and small ears 
that are obscured by its fur (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 441; 52 FR 36776, 
October 1, 1987).
    Goldman (1938, pp. 493-494) described and named the Hualapai 
Mexican vole (also known as the Hualapai vole) as Microtus mexicanus 
hualapaiensis in 1938. This was based on only four specimens, but 
Cockrum (1960, p. 210), Hall (1981, p. 481), and Hoffmeister (1986, pp. 
444-445) all recognized the subspecies. M. m.

[[Page 28095]]

hualpaiensis has been considered one of three subspecies of M. 
mexicanus found in Arizona (Kime et al. 1995, p. 1). It was 
distinguished from M. m. navaho to the northeast by a slightly longer 
body, longer tail, and longer and broader skull (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 
443). It was distinguished from M. m. mogollonensis by a longer body, 
shorter tail, and a longer and narrower skull (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 
443).
    The final rule listing M. m. hualpaiensis (52 FR 36776) indicated 
that this subspecies occupied the Hualapai Mountains, but also 
acknowledged that Spicer et al. (1985, p. 10) noted similar voles from 
the Music Mountains and that Hoffmeister (1986, p. 445) had tentatively 
assigned specimens from Prospect Valley to M. m. hualpaiensis. The rule 
stated that if future taxonomic evaluation of voles from the Music 
Mountains and Prospect Valley should indicate that they are M. m. 
hualpaiensis, the voles from the Music Mountains and Prospect Valley 
would be covered by the listing of the subspecies.
    At the time of Federal listing, little was known about the life 
history of the Hualapai Mexican vole, but it was assumed to be similar 
to the other two M. mexicanus subspecies (Service 1991, p. 1). Hualapai 
Mexican voles are probably active year-round, as are other Microtus 
species (Spicer et al. 1985, p. 22). It is assumed they have small 
litters, similar to the other two subspecies, as they have only two 
pairs of mammae (mammary glands), which limits the number of young that 
can be nursed (Hoffmeister 1986, p. 443). Mexican voles are typically 
found in xeric (dry) habitats, unlike most Microtus species, which are 
associated with mesic (intermediate moisture) habitats (Tamarin 1985, 
p. 99).
    A recovery plan for the Hualapai Mexican vole was completed and 
signed in August 1991. It outlined recovery objectives and has directed 
management and research priorities for the ensuing years.

Recent Taxonomy

    Following Federal listing of the Hualapai Mexican vole, several 
focused surveys of the subspecies' distribution, habitat requirements, 
and genetic relationship to other M. mexicanus subspecies were 
undertaken. The petition reviews the taxonomic history of the Hualapai 
Mexican vole and recent genetic studies that have a bearing on its 
taxonomic status and concludes that only one subspecies of M. mexicanus 
should be recognized in Arizona. We briefly describe the petition's 
interpretations of these genetic studies below. Researchers did not 
collect or analyze samples from the exact same locations, so site names 
across studies do not necessarily match. We have presented site names 
and resulting population assignments as described in the petition and 
studies cited in the petition.
    As a point of clarification, Frey and LaRue (1993, p. 176) asserted 
that Mexican voles from Mexico are distinct from populations in the 
United States based on genetic and morphologic data. They assigned 
voles in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas that were formerly named M. 
mexicanus to M. mogollonensis (Frey and LaRue 1993, pp. 176-177). 
Because the Service did not formally change the scientific name of the 
Hualapai Mexican vole, we continue to use the name M. mexicanus in this 
finding.
    The petition states that in 1993, Frey and Yates conducted a 
genetic analysis on tissue samples from 12 populations (AGFD 2004, p. 
2); there was an additional population from Mexico (Frey and Yates 
1995, p. 9) not mentioned in the petition. According to the petition 
(AGFD 2004, pp. 2-3), the results showed that three populations 
(Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Indian Reservation, and Music Mountains) 
were genetically distinct from other populations in Arizona and 
indicated that all three populations might be placed in the subspecies 
M. m. hualpaiensis. The petition noted that Frey and Yates (1993) 
stipulated that additional analyses including larger sample sizes might 
substantiate their findings. The petition states that Frey and Yates 
(1995) continued their work on the three Arizona subspecies and found 
that six of the populations sampled (Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai 
Indian Reservation, Music Mountains, Aubrey Cliffs/Chino Wash, Santa 
Maria Mountains, and Bradshaw Mountains) could be placed in the 
subspecies M. m. hualpaiensis (AGFD 2004, p. 3). In fact, Frey and 
Yates (1995, p. 9) treated the Aubrey Cliffs and Chino Wash populations 
as two distinct populations, bringing the number of M. m. hualpaiensis 
populations to seven. They also believed that two other populations 
(Round Mountain and Sierra Prieta) could be placed in the subspecies M. 
m. hualpaiensis, based on geographic proximity (AGFD 2004, p. 3).
    Additional genetic analyses were conducted by Busch et al. (2001). 
According to the petition (AGFD 2004, p. 3), they assessed the 
evolutionary relatedness of 11 of the 16 populations that Frey and 
Yates reported on in 1995. In addition, they analyzed samples taken 
from specimens in two other areas (Watson Woods and Navajo Mountain). 
The petition states that their results did not support separation of M. 
mexicanus in Arizona into three distinct subspecies. Populations 
assigned to M. m. navajo from Navajo Mountain, Mingus Mountain, San 
Francisco Peaks, and the Grand Canyon South Rim, and populations 
assigned to M. m. mogollonensis from the Mogollon Rim, Chuska 
Mountains, and White Mountains were not differentiated from those from 
the Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Aubrey Cliffs, 
Bradshaw Mountains, Watson Woods, and Sierra Prieta (AGFD 2004, p. 3; 
Busch et al. 2001, p. 2). The petition states that the authors believed 
the specimens from the White Mountains and Chuska Mountains could be 
considered a different subspecies, or they may simply show some genetic 
difference due to geographic separation (AGFD 2004, p. 3; Busch et al. 
2001, p. 11-12). According to Busch et al. (2001, p. 12) and 
acknowledged by the petitioner, there is only one subspecies of M. 
mexicanus in Arizona.
    The petition included reviews by five experts familiar with genetic 
research who analyzed the Busch et al. (2001) report. According to the 
petition (AGFD 2004, pp. 3-4), one reviewer believed the data collected 
from Hualapai Mountains, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Aubrey Cliffs/
Chino Wash, Bradshaw Mountains/Watson Woods, and Sierra Prieta 
represented five populations of M. m. hualpaiensis. Conversely, the 
reviewer concluded that the data from three sites (Mingus Mountain, San 
Francisco Peaks, and Grand Canyon South Rim) represented a different 
subspecies (M. m. navaho). The reviewer also suggested that the 
populations found in the Music Mountains and the Santa Maria Mountains 
were likely M. m. hualpaiensis based on ``less well-supported 
morphologic, genetic, and biogeographic data,'' for a total of seven 
populations. This reviewer did not include a discussion of M. m. 
mogollonensis and the validity of that subspecies. The petition states 
that the other four reviewers concurred overall with the conclusions in 
Busch et al. (2001) that all populations sampled could be assigned to 
M. m. hualpaiensis (AGFD 2004, p. 4).
    Additionally, AGFD sent Busch et al.'s 2001 report to two different 
experts on mammalian taxonomy. The petition states that one of the 
taxonomic reviewers agreed with the dissenting genetic review discussed 
in the preceding paragraph that there are sufficient data to support 
distinguishing

[[Page 28096]]

more than one subspecies (AGFD 2004, p. 4). The reviewer concurred with 
the geneticist's population assignments of the subspecies. The petition 
states that the other taxonomic reviewer concluded that there is no 
basis to consider the three subspecies separate, that the reviewer 
stated that data used by Hoffmeister (1986) were insufficient to 
recognize three subspecies, and the genetic analyses (DNA and isozyme) 
(Frey and Yates 1993; 1995; Busch et al. 2001) were subject to 
methodological problems (AGFD 2004, p. 4). The reviewer asserted that 
all three subspecies should be considered as one, M. m. mogollonensis.
    In summary, the various analyses and reviews present multiple 
interpretations of the taxonomy and distribution of voles in Arizona, 
none of which match that of our original listing. Although we are 
unable to ascertain the correct interpretation at this time, we believe 
the petitioner has presented reliable and accurate information 
indicating (1) That the Hualapai Mexican vole, as currently listed, may 
not be a valid taxonomic entity; and (2) that if the Hualapai Mexican 
vole is a valid taxon, it likely occurs throughout a greater range than 
originally thought.

Status Assessment

    Pursuant to section 4 of the Act, we may list or delist a species, 
subspecies, or Distinct Population Segment of vertebrate taxa on the 
basis of any of the following five factors: (A) Present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. If it is determined that the 
Hualapai Mexican vole is a valid taxon occurring throughout a larger 
range, a new status review, based on a review of the five listing 
factors, would be required in order to determine if the Hualapai 
Mexican vole still meets the definition of threatened or endangered 
under the Act. This 90-day finding is not a status assessment and does 
not constitute a status review under the Act. Therefore, what follows 
below is a preliminary review of the factors affecting this subspecies, 
as presented by the petitioner. Please note that the petitioner 
addressed the subspecies as though it occurs in a larger range than 
what is currently recognized. Because we only monitor populations of 
Hualapai Mexican vole that occur within the Hualapai Mountains, as 
described in the listing rule, we have very limited information in our 
files with which to draw conclusions regarding potential populations 
outside the Hualapai Mountains.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    The final rule listing the subspecies considered the Hualapai 
Mexican vole to be extremely rare, with one of the most limited 
habitats of any North American mammal (52 FR 36776). The habitat was 
considered in danger of further degradation by cattle grazing and 
increased human recreational activities. The petition asserts that the 
subspecies occurs over a much greater area and in higher numbers than 
previously thought (AGFD 2004, pp. 2-6; see Recent Taxonomy discussion 
above). Therefore, loss of limited habitat should no longer be 
considered a threat to the subspecies. In addition, the petitioner 
asserts that the Hualapai Mexican vole is found in more xeric habitats 
than most Microtus species (AGFD 2004, p. 5); therefore, trampling of 
spring areas by cattle will not negatively affect the subspecies as 
intensely as it was thought when the subspecies was listed.
    The Service only tracks the status of the Hualapai Mexican vole 
populations within the Hualapai Mountains, where it was listed. There 
is not enough information in our files to assess the reliability of 
information in the petition; therefore, we assume it is reliable.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    While the Hualapai Mexican vole is not sought for commercial, 
recreational, or educational purposes, persecuted as a pest, or 
collected for the pet trade, the final rule listing the species 
indicated that an intensive trapping effort could eliminate a 
population (52 FR 36773). The petition notes that collecting of the 
Hualapai Mexican vole has historically been done for genetic analyses 
and comparison of morphological measurements and that, historically, 
the number of individuals taken was small relative to the number 
captured (AGFD 2004, p. 6). Genetic analyses may continue, but will be 
monitored through scientific collection permits authorized by the 
petitioner, AGFD. The petitioner does not believe that this factor 
rises to the level of a threat.
    Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
education purposes was not presented as a threat in the final listing 
rule, and we have not received any reports of overutilization of 
Hualapai Mexican voles in the Hualapai Mountains since the listing of 
the subspecies. We have no information in our files to indicate that 
the petitioner's information is unreliable or inaccurate.

C. Disease or Predation

    The final rule listing the Hualapai Mexican vole states that little 
is known about disease or predation in Hualapai Mexican vole 
populations (52 FR 36778). However, species of Microtus are usually a 
fundamental part of the base of the food pyramid, and many potential 
predators occur in the Hualapai Mountains. Additionally, domestic cats 
may pose a threat from the expanding residential area near Hualapai 
Mountain Park. The petitioner notes that predation is not known to be a 
problem, especially if the range of the subspecies is not limited to 
the Hualapai Mountains (AGFD 2004, p. 6). Additionally, the petitioner 
notes that domestic cats have rarely been observed in Hualapai Mountain 
Park and, therefore, believes the threat of predation on Hualapai 
Mexican voles is overstated in the listing rule. However, the 
petitioner provides no information to support these assertions.
    Although domestic cats have been mentioned as a threat (Spicer 
1985, p. 28), we have no information to suggest these cats represent a 
significant predation threat to the Hualapai Mexican vole. Therefore, 
we assume that the petitioner's information is reliable.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The petition states that the removal of Federal protections 
afforded by the Act will not negatively affect Hualapai Mexican vole 
populations, since the species' range and habitat requirements are not 
as restricted as previously thought (AGFD 2004, p. 6). The petition 
also recognizes that Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 14 
prohibits hunting or trapping of Hualapai Mexican voles. Arizona 
Revised Statute (i.e., State Law) allows for the Commission to issue 
orders regarding the hunting and trapping of wildlife in Arizona. Also, 
since the petitioner, AGFD, has authority over scientific collection 
permits, it can approve or deny permits based on submitted research 
proposals (AGFD 2004, pp. 6-7).
    The Service only tracks the status of the Hualapai Mexican vole 
populations within the Hualapai Mountains, where it is listed. We do 
not have any information in our files to indicate that a lack of 
regulatory mechanisms could be a problem. Therefore, we assume that the 
petitioner's information is reliable.

[[Page 28097]]

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    The final rule listing the Hualapai Mexican vole notes that the 
areas of habitat supporting the subspecies are small and isolated (52 
FR 36778). This mammal is thus fragmented into small populations that 
may be subject to inbreeding and reduced genetic variability. Drought, 
which can reduce water flow, vegetation growth, and ground cover, is an 
additional threat to these populations (52 FR 36778). The petition 
asserts that because the Hualapai Mexican vole's range is not as 
restricted as once thought, manmade factors should not negatively 
influence the continued existence of the species (AGFD 2004, p. 7). 
Additionally, the petitioner states that drought is not a serious 
threat to Hualapai Mexican vole populations, because the normal and 
regular occurrence of drought probably allowed this vole to adapt to 
drier habitat conditions (AGFD 2004, p. 7). The petitioner also 
suggested that prescribed fire might improve or expand the habitat of 
the species (AGFD 2004, p. 7).
    The Service only tracks the status of the Hualapai Mexican vole 
populations within the Hualapai Mountains, where it is listed. The 
apparent continued presence of the vole in those mountains (Kime et al. 
1995, p. 6) suggests that drought may not be as great a threat as was 
thought at the time of listing. We did not address prescribed fire as a 
manmade factor in our listing rule. There is not enough information in 
our files to draw conclusions regarding the effects of drought or 
prescribed burns on additional populations; however, we have no 
information to indicate that the petitioner's information is unreliable 
or inaccurate. Therefore, we assumed the petitioner's information is 
reliable.

Finding

    We have reviewed the petition and the supporting documents, as well 
as other information in our files. We find that the petition presents 
substantial information indicating that delisting the Hualapai Mexican 
vole may be warranted. The petitioner has provided information 
suggesting the taxon may occur over a greater range of the State than 
known at the time of listing, and may not even warrant taxonomic 
standing as a subspecies. As discussed above, given the limited 
information in our files regarding these issues, we assume that the 
information presented in the petition is reliable. If reliable, that 
information is adequate to demonstrate that delisting may be warranted. 
While significant questions remain about the taxonomy of the species 
and threats facing the additional populations of voles, we consider 
these questions to be issues relevant to the listing determination that 
warrant further investigation. Accordingly, we believe it is 
appropriate to consider this information and any other new information 
available about this species, and the threats it may face, in a status 
review.

Public Information Solicited

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial 
information to indicate that delisting a species may be warranted, we 
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the 
species. Based on results of the status review, we make a 12-month 
finding as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. To ensure that 
the status review is complete and based on the best available 
scientific information, we are soliciting information on M. mexicanus 
in Arizona. This includes information regarding historical and current 
distribution, taxonomic status, biology and ecology, ongoing 
conservation measures for the species and its habitat, and threats to 
the species and its habitat. This information is particularly needed 
for any populations of the taxon that were not among the three 
potential populations considered to be M. m. hualapaiensis in the 1987 
final listing. We also request information regarding the adequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms. We request any additional information, 
comments, and suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry or environmental 
entities, or any other interested parties concerning the status of M. 
mexicanus in Arizona.
    We are particularly interested in the views of scientists with 
expertise in mammalian taxonomy and the use of genetic data when making 
taxonomic determinations of species and subspecies. In particular, we 
are interested in review and comment on whether the information such as 
the original morphological evidence and new genetic reports support or 
refute the taxonomic validity of M. m. hualapaiensis.
    If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials 
concerning this finding. You may submit your comments and materials 
concerning the taxonomic and listing status of M. m. hualapaiensis by 
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 
comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the 
ADDRESSES section. We will not accept anonymous comments; your comments 
must include your first and last name, city, State , country, and 
postal (zip) code. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered 
comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not 
postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section. Comments 
submitted via https://www.regulations.gov must be submitted before 
midnight (Eastern Standard Time) on the date specified in the DATES 
section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you provide 
personal identifying information in addition to the required items 
specified on the previous paragraph, such as your street address, phone 
number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document 
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for 
public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, 
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, 
Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021 (602/242-0210).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this finding is 
available, upon request, from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, 
Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021 (602/242-0210).

Authority

    The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: May 2, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-10906 Filed 5-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P