Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake as Threatened, 27403-27411 [2012-11230]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27403-27411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11230]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0006: 4500030113]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
a Petition To List the Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake as Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
90-day finding on a petition to list the eastern diamondback 
rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) as threatened under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) and to designate critical 
habitat. Based on our review, we find that the petition presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing the eastern diamondback rattlesnake may be warranted. 
Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a 
review of the status of the species to determine if listing the eastern 
diamondback rattlesnake is warranted. To ensure that this status review 
is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and 
other information regarding this species. Based on the status review, 
we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address 
whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request 
that we receive information on or before July 9, 2012. The deadline for 
submitting an electronic comment using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
(see ADDRESSES section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date. 
After July 9, 2012, you must submit information directly to the Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note 
that we might not be able to address or incorporate information that we 
receive after the above requested date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter Docket No. 
FWS-R4-ES-2012-0006 which is the docket number for this action. Then 
click on the Search button. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Send a Comment or Submission.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2012-0006; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all information we receive on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information 
section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Imm, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL, Ecological Services Field 
Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405; telephone 850-769-
0552; facsimile 850-763-2177. If you use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Information

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are 
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). 
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we request information on the 
eastern diamondback rattlesnake from governmental agencies, Native 
American tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other 
interested parties. We seek information on:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy throughout its entire range both 
historical and current;
    (c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    (3) Information related to whether any portion of the species' 
range should be considered for listing as a distinct population 
segment.
    (4) Information on specific activities that could be affected or 
issues caused by listing the species.
    If, after the status review, we determine that listing the eastern 
diamondback rattlesnake is warranted, we will propose critical habitat 
(see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under section 4 of the 
Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we 
propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and 
information on:
    (1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the

[[Page 27404]]

conservation of the species,'' within the geographical range currently 
occupied by the species;
    (2) Where these features are currently found;
    (3) Whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection;
    (4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species that are ``essential for the conservation of the species;'' and
    (5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for 
designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such 
habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action 
under consideration without providing supporting information, although 
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any 
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
    You may submit your information concerning this status review by 
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit 
information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the 
Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this personal identifying information from 
public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do 
so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used 
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, 
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Ecological Services 
Field Office, FL (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

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

Petition History

    On August 29, 2011, we received a petition dated August 22, 2011, 
from Collette L. Adkins Giese, Herpetofauna Staff Attorney, Center for 
Biological Diversity; D. Noah Greenwald, Endangered Species Program 
Director, Center for Biological Diversity; D. Bruce Means, Ph.D., 
President and Executive Director, Coastal Plains Institute; Bill 
Matturro, Protect All Living Species; and Jim Ries, One More Generation 
(petitioners), requesting that the eastern diamondback rattlesnake be 
listed as a threatened species and that critical habitat be designated 
under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and 
included the requisite identification information for the petitioners 
required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a September 26, 2011, letter to the 
petitioners, we acknowledged receipt of the petition. On December 11, 
2011, we received, via email, a letter dated December 9, 2011, from the 
petitioners submitting information to amend the petition with new 
information regarding climate change. In a December 12, 2011, email to 
the petitioners, we acknowledged receipt of the new information. This 
finding addresses the petition.

Previous Federal Action(s)

    There are no previous Federal actions concerning the eastern 
diamondback rattlesnake under the Act.

Species Information

    The eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) was 
described in 1799 by Beauvois (Transactions of the American 
Philosophical Society, Vol. 4 (1799), pp. 362-381). The Florida Museum 
of Natural History Web site 2011 (https://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/herpetology/fl-guide/crotalusadamanteus.htm) lists Crotalus durissus as a synonym 
by Boulenger (1896). This synonym was not found in other taxonomic 
treatments of the species or in the information available to the 
Service at the time of this finding. No other taxonomic history other 
than C. adamanteus was found during the course of this finding. The 
eastern diamondback is recognized as a valid species in the Checklist 
of Vertebrates of the United States, the U.S. Territories, and Canada 
(ITIS) (retrieved November 9, 2011, from the Integrated Taxonomic 
Information System on-line database). Therefore, we accept the 
taxonomic description of the eastern diamondback as Crotalus 
adamanteus.
    The eastern diamondback rattlesnake is recognized by its large 
size, diamond- patterned dorsal (upper) side, yellowish unpatterned 
underbelly, dark tail with rattle, and infrared sensitive pit between 
the eye and nostril (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 2). The eastern 
diamondback is the largest rattlesnake in the world (Timmerman and 
Martin 2003, p. 1). Adult snakes average 4 to 5 feet (ft) (1.2 to 1.5 
meters (m)) in length and average 4 to 5 pounds (lbs) (1.8 to 2.3 
kilograms (kg)) in weight. Eastern diamondbacks in the 6-ft (1.8-m) 
range are considered quite large and can reach 12 lbs (5.4 kg) or more 
(Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 2).
    The historical (pre-European settlement or presettlement) range of 
the eastern diamondback rattlesnake encompasses the Coastal Plain of 
the southeastern United States from North Carolina to south Florida, 
and west to Mississippi and Louisiana (Mount 1975, Dundee and Rossman 
1989, Palmer and Braswell 1995, Ernst and Ernst 2003, and Campbell and 
Lamar 2004 as cited in the petition on p. 9). At the broadest spatial 
scale, the historical range of the eastern diamondback is largely 
congruent with the historical distribution of the longleaf pine savanna 
ecosystem (Martin and Means 2000, p. 20; Waldron et al. 2008, p. 2478).
    The principal native habitat of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake 
in presettlement times was longleaf pine savannas (Martin and Means 
2000, p. 20). Longleaf pine savannas once occupied about 62 percent of 
the uplands of the Coastal Plain and about 40 percent of the regional 
landscape (Petition, p. 13). Today, nearly all of the old growth 
longleaf pine savannas are gone, and the eastern diamondback survives 
wherever its native habitats still exist or where open-canopy, ruderal 
forests and grasslands that mimic the native vegetation have developed 
(Petition, p. 12). The remaining

[[Page 27405]]

principal large tracts of second growth longleaf pine are found on 
publically owned lands in the Coastal Plain, especially national 
forests, military bases, State forests and parks, and a few wildlife 
refuges (Means 2005, p. 76).
    Longleaf pine savannas are maintained by frequent fires. Naturally 
ignited by lightning during spring and early summer, these flatwoods 
historically burned at intervals ranging from 1 to 4 years (Clewell 
1989, p. 226).
    Shelters from fire and cold are important microhabitats for the 
eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Martin and Means 2000, p. 18). Eastern 
diamondbacks seek subterranean overwintering shelters throughout their 
range with the exception of extreme southern Florida and the Florida 
Keys (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 8). They also use gopher tortoise 
(Gopherus polyphemus) and armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) burrows as 
well as fire-burned pine stumpholes and cavities at the bases of 
hardwood trees (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 8; Means 2005, p. 74).
    The natural lifespan of an eastern diamondback rattlesnake is 
probably 15 to 20 years, but evidence from the field indicates that few 
individuals today live beyond 10 years, likely due to anthropogenic 
threats (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 15). Mating occurs in the late 
summer and early fall (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 15). Ovulation 
apparently occurs in the late spring of the following year with births 
centered in late August and ranging from late July to early October 
(Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 15). Female eastern diamondbacks reach 
sexual maturity between 2 to 6 years of age (Timmerman and Martin 2003, 
p. 16). Eastern diamondbacks have long birth intervals and gestational 
periods; females reproduce only every 2 to 4 years, depending on the 
geographic location, age of the snake, and productivity of the 
environment (Petition, p. 14).
    The eastern diamondback rattlesnake is an ambush predator that 
feeds on a wide variety of small mammals and some birds (Timmerman and 
Martin 2003, p. 6). The bulk of its prey consists of rabbits 
(Sylvilagus sp.), cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus), and gray squirrels 
(Sciurus carolinensis) (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 6). The open-
canopy habitats of the eastern diamondback favor the development of an 
herbaceous groundcover on which its primary prey depend (Petition, p. 
12). The eastern diamondback is terrestrial, hunting almost exclusively 
on the ground (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 6). As a member of the pit 
viper family, it is able to hunt in total darkness and identify warm-
blooded prey via infrared detection (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 6). 
Timmerman (Petition, p. 14) found that home ranges for females averaged 
114.9 acres (ac) (46.5 hectares (ha)), home ranges for males averaged 
208.3 ac (84.3 ha), and that the species does not defend a territory. 
Eastern diamondbacks do not den communally (Means 2009, p. 138).
    The species has likely been declining since the 1930s (Timmerman 
and Martin 2003, p. 19). The greatest population decline of eastern 
diamondback rattlesnakes has occurred since the 1970s, as the human 
population grew in the southeastern United States (Timmerman and Martin 
2003, p. 19). The area of occupancy, number of subpopulations, and 
population size of the eastern diamondback is declining throughout the 
species' range (Nature Serve 2010 as cited in the petition on p. 9). 
The range has contracted because of habitat loss from agriculture, 
silviculture, urbanization, and plant succession resulting from fire 
suppression (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 9). Remaining intact range 
supporting large populations of the eastern diamondback is now located 
only in northern Florida and southern Georgia (Martin and Means 2000, 
p. 21). The species is likely gone from Louisiana, endangered in North 
Carolina, and scarce in South Carolina (Dundee and Rossman 1989; Palmer 
and Braswell 1995; Georgia DNR 2011; and Means 2011 as cited in the 
petition on p. 9).
    There are other indicators of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake's 
decline from collection for anti-venom production, commercial sale of 
skin and other parts, and supplying rattlesnake roundups. Size records 
for thousands of eastern diamondbacks purchased by the Ross Allen 
Reptile Institute demonstrate that the average snake length dropped by 
about a foot (30.5 centimeters) between the 1930s and 1960s (Diemer-
Berish 1998, p. 556; Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 19).
    The size and numbers of eastern diamondback rattlesnakes collected 
at ``rattlesnake roundups'' also provides an indicator of population 
status (Means 2009, p. 134). Since at least the mid-1980s, a steady 
decline is evident for the weights of prize-winning eastern 
diamondbacks collected in all four roundups in the southeastern United 
States (Means 2006, p. 170-171; Means 2009, p. 134). Declining size 
means fewer older snakes and, therefore, has negative implications for 
the reproductive success of local populations (Means 2009, p. 137). 
Heavily harvested populations are skewed to smaller and less productive 
animals (Enge 1993, p. 412), as clutch size is correlated with the body 
size of the mother (Petition, p. 15).
    There has also been a decline in the numbers of eastern diamondback 
rattlesnakes brought into the roundups (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 
19; Means 2009, p. 134). The number of snakes brought into the Whigham, 
Georgia, roundup in January 2011 was the lowest number in the history 
of the event, at 82 snakes, down from a high of 583 in 1992.

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species 
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats; we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual 
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no 
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If 
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may 
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat 
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the 
risk of extinction of the species so that the species may warrant 
listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are defined by the 
Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The 
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the 
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of 
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to 
compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information shall 
contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be 
operative threats that act on the

[[Page 27406]]

species to the point that the species may meet the definition of 
threatened or endangered under the Act.
    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information 
regarding threats to the eastern diamondback rattlesnake, as presented 
in the petition and other information available in our files, is 
substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition discusses the correlation between the status and 
condition of open-canopy longleaf pine savannas and the status of the 
eastern diamondback rattlesnake. According to the petition, in 
presettlement times, the eastern diamondback thrived in the longleaf 
pine savannas that covered the southeastern United States. But today, 
less than two or three percent of the longleaf pine savanna habitat 
remains (Noss et al. 1995, p. 3; Platt 1999 p. 24; Martin and Means 
2000, p. 20). The presettlement population of the eastern diamondback 
has been estimated to be about 3.08 million individuals (Petition, p. 
14), but the petition acknowledges that no sound baseline information 
exists (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 19). It is unlikely that the 
current population exceeds 100,000 snakes (Means 2011 as cited in the 
petition on p. 15). Thus, the petition indicates that, as in the 
longleaf pine savannas reduction, it is possible that the current 
population of the eastern diamondback is about 3 percent of the 
historical population (Petition, p. 16).
    The petition provides that, while the eastern diamondback 
rattlesnake does not require longleaf pine savannas to survive, it does 
require open-canopy habitats that provide herbaceous groundcover for 
its prey species (Means 2011 as cited in the petition on p. 16). Open-
canopy habitats are becoming increasingly rare, as forests are being 
converted into closed-canopy pine plantations, residential and 
commercial developments, and agriculture (Petition, p. 16). The 
petition asserts that there is significant agreement among scientists 
that the destruction of longleaf pine savannas and open-canopy forest 
is the single most important factor affecting the survival of the 
eastern diamondback (Martin and Means 2000, p. 21; Timmerman and Martin 
2003, p. 21; Waldron et al. 2006, p. 419; Waldron et al. 2008, p. 2478; 
Means 2011 as cited in the petition on p. 16). The petition summarizes 
the current status of the eastern diamondback in the southeastern 
United States.
    In North Carolina, the eastern diamondback rattlesnake is now 
restricted to the Lower Coastal Plain south of the Neuse River (Martin 
and Means 2000, p. 17; NatureServe 2010 as cited in the petition on p. 
9). The eastern diamondback was once known to occupy Croatan National 
Forest, but it has not been documented on any lands in the State 
managed by the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, or U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service in the last 10 years (Petition, p. 11).
    In South Carolina, the eastern diamondback rattlesnake is patchily 
distributed where it occurs in undeveloped areas on the Lower and 
Middle Coastal Plain and on Edisto Island and three smaller barrier 
islands (Martin and Means 2000, p. 17; NatureServe 2010 as cited in the 
petition on p. 11). South Carolina has numerous National Park Service 
lands and National Wildlife Refuges within the historical range of the 
eastern diamondback, however, only the Ace Basin National Wildlife 
Refuge has any records of the snake from the last 10 years (Petition, 
p. 11).
    In Georgia, the extent of the current range of the eastern 
diamondback rattlesnake is probably essentially unchanged from 
presettlement times and includes the Coastal Strand and Barrier Island 
region of the Atlantic coast (Martin and Means 2000, p. 14). However, 
much of the habitat within the range has been lost to development, 
hurricanes, or absence of shelter (hardwood stumps), and its 
distribution is highly fragmented (Martin and Means 2000, pp. 16-17).
    In Florida, the eastern diamondback has become rare or disappeared 
completely from many sites within its historical range that was 
essentially statewide, including barrier islands and keys (Martin and 
Means 2000, pp. 15-16). Much of the species' habitat has been lost to 
urbanization and conversion to citrus groves and improved pasture in 
the Florida peninsula during the last half of the twentieth century 
(Martin and Means 2000, p. 15). Florida encompasses half of the 
species' current range (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 41).
    In Alabama, the eastern diamondback rattlesnake occurs in the Lower 
Coastal Plain where longleaf pine and wiregrass originally dominated 
the uplands (NatureServe 2010 as cited in the petition p. 12). It is 
found primarily in the southwestern part of the State, in southern 
Washington and northern Mobile Counties, Alabama (Martin and Means 
2000, p. 13; Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 9). The only Federal land in 
Alabama with a record of the eastern diamondback within the last 10 
years is the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge (NatureServe 2010 as 
cited in the petition on p. 12).
    In Mississippi, the eastern diamondback rattlesnake may have ranged 
to the limits of the State's longleaf pine forest, but was not known to 
occur on barrier islands (NatureServe 2010 as cited in the petition on 
p. 12). Today, the species is uncommon because its habitat is being 
converted to agriculture and it is hunted for the roundup at the City 
of Opp, Alabama, and the skin trade. Its range is now being confined 
mainly to the longleaf pine hills and pine flats regions (Martin and 
Means 2000, pp. 13-14; Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 43; NatureServe 
2010 as cited in the petition on p. 12). The three national wildlife 
refuges in the State within the historical range of the species lack 
any records of the eastern diamondback from the last 10 years 
(Petition, p. 12).
    In Louisiana, the eastern diamondback rattlesnake was historically 
confined to the eastern-most three of the seven Florida parishes (the 
area of Louisiana north of Lake Pontchartrain, east of the Mississippi 
River and Bayou Manchac and south of the Mississippi border) and was 
never reported from the barrier islands (NatureServe 2010 as cited in 
the petition p. 12). The eastern diamondback is likely extirpated in 
Louisiana. It is possible that the species may exist in extreme 
northeastern Louisiana, but is so rare that it is functionally extinct 
(Martin and Means 2000, p. 11; Timmerman and Martin 2003, pp. 9, 20, 
43). The snake was last observed in Louisiana in 1995 (Louisiana 
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 2010 Web site https://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/serpentes/eastern-diamondback-rattlesnake as 
cited in the petition on p. 12).
    The petition also asserts that the quality of the open-canopy and 
longleaf pine savannas has declined--this being mainly due to the 
absence of fire (Petition, p. 13). Without active fire management, 
remnant longleaf pine ecosystems convert to closed-canopy forests and 
become unsuitable for snakes such as the eastern diamondback (Petition, 
pp. 13, 16). In presettlement times, lightning-caused fires burned on 
average every 1 to 4 years, keeping the canopy open. However, in the 
past 200 years, human settlement of the Coastal Plain has drastically 
altered the normal, summertime fire cycle. Not only have

[[Page 27407]]

wildfires been actively suppressed following ignition, but roads, 
towns, agricultural fields, and other developments impede the 
widespread, weeks-long fires that swept the Coastal Plain regularly in 
presettlement times (Means 2011 as cited in the petition on p. 16). The 
disruption of the natural fire cycle has resulted in an increase in 
slash and loblolly pine on sites formerly dominated by longleaf pine, 
an increase in hardwood understory, and a decrease in herbaceous ground 
cover (Wolfe et al. 1988, p. 132; Yager et al. 2007, p. 428).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The petition states that the species' range reduction, habitat loss 
and degradation, and lack of fire are contributing heavily to the 
population reduction of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake. The 
petition asserts that remaining population size of the eastern 
diamondback of three percent corresponds to the amount of remaining 
historical longleaf pine savanna habitat of two to three percent. 
Similar information concerning the life history, status, and 
distribution of the eastern diamondback and availability of suitable 
habitat (longleaf pine savannas and open-canopy forests) is also found 
in the Service's files (Timmerman and Means 2003, entire; America's 
Longleaf Regional Working Group 2009, entire). The Region-wide 
Conservation Plan for Longleaf states that longleaf pine forests are a 
remnant of their former 90 million ac (36.4 million ha) (America's 
Longleaf Regional Working Group 2009, p. 1). As indicated in the 
petition, less than three percent or an estimated 3.4 million ac (1.4 
million ha) remain (America's Longleaf Regional Working Group 2009, p. 
1) of longleaf forests. Fragmentation, unsustainable harvest, 
conversion to other land uses and vegetative types, invasive species, 
and exclusion of natural fire regimes have cumulatively resulted in 
declines in the extent, condition, and future sustainability of the 
system. The loss of 97 percent of the longleaf forests is a dramatic 
change in the landscape. While no discussion of the eastern diamondback 
is provided in the Conservation Plan, the species is listed as a 
species of conservation interest in the longleaf pine ecosystem 
(America's Longleaf Regional Working Group 2009, pp. 41-42).
    Prescribed burning has been a tool used on forested lands to 
restore the natural fire regime, but liability, reduced budgets, 
unfavorable weather, and backlogged, dangerously high fuel loads from 
years of fire suppression have allowed the quality of habitat 
maintained by fires to degrade and become less or, in many cases, 
unsuitable for the eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Wade and Lundsford 
1989, pp. 1-2; Kaufman et al. undated, pp. 2, 4-8).
    In summary, we find that the information presented in the petition, 
as well as the information available in our files, presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range primarily as a 
result of the conversion of natural pine habitat to silviculture, 
agriculture, urbanization, and to fire suppression.

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

Information Provided in the Petition
    According to the petition, eastern diamondback rattlesnakes are 
harvested for their skins and other parts including venom, and are 
killed for recreation (Martin and Means 2000, p. 21; Means 2009, p. 
139; Means 2011 as cited in the petition on p. 19). This exploitation 
by humans is having a severe impact on remaining eastern diamondback 
rattlesnake populations (Martin and Means 2000, p. 21; Means 2009, p. 
139; Means 2011 as cited in the petition on p. 19). Various markets for 
eastern diamondback rattlesnakes have existed for decades (Petition, p. 
19). The rattlesnake skin trade likely takes thousands of eastern 
diamondbacks each year, with no limit placed on annual harvest 
(Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 22). From 1990 to 1994, Florida hide 
dealers and taxidermists purchased 42,788 eastern diamondbacks, 
primarily from Georgia, Alabama, and Florida (Timmerman and Martin 
2003, p. 40).
    According to the petition, intensive collection of rattlesnakes for 
``rattlesnake roundups'' is affecting the eastern diamondback 
rattlesnake (Diemer-Berish 1998, p. 556). In rattlesnake roundups, 
rattlesnakes are collected in competitions for prizes (Timmerman and 
Martin 2003, p. 22). Some of the snakes including eastern diamondbacks 
are then sold for skins and other parts. Means (2009, p. 132) analyzed 
50 years of data for the longest running roundups involving the eastern 
diamondback. At least 23 roundups were held for the purpose of 
downsizing the population of the eastern diamondback (Petition, p. 20). 
Hunters that gather rattlesnakes for roundups often use the practice of 
pouring gasoline or ammonia through a hose placed inside the burrows of 
gopher tortoises in winter (Petition, p. 20). This practice often kills 
the snakes and impacts other fauna inhabiting the burrows (Petition 
2011, p. 20). Means (as cited in the petition on p. 20) also found that 
the total number of captured rattlesnakes declined by 67 percent in the 
last two decades. Thus, the petition asserts that the numbers of snakes 
collected for rattlesnake roundups likely are an underestimate of the 
number of snakes actually killed by hunters (Petition, p. 20).
    The petition stated that eastern diamondback rattlesnakes are also 
taken for venom extraction. The Ross Allen Reptile Institute purchased 
and supplied most of the venom to U.S. laboratories during the 
development of anti-venom from 1929 to 1940, and for the production of 
anti-venom during World War II (Petition, p. 20). Other laboratories 
have also purchased thousands of eastern diamondbacks for the purpose 
of venom extraction (Petition, p. 20).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Information concerning the harvest of eastern diamondback 
rattlesnakes similar to that presented in the petition is found in 
Service files. Since the 1930s there has been a variety of markets for 
the eastern diamondback. The snake's meat has been used as a food 
delicacy, skins for clothing, parts for curio trade, venom for human 
safety, and they have been sold at festivals or events for recreation 
and tourism (Timmerman and Martin 2003, pp. 21-22). In addition to the 
decline in the capture rate of snakes (harvest and research) and the 
potential reasons for the decline (fewer snakes, market changes, and 
regulation), the effects to eastern diamondback populations include the 
disappearance of larger eastern diamondbacks and increased capture of 
smaller diamondbacks (Timmerman and Martin 2003, pp. 19-20).
    In summary, we find that the information presented in the petition, 
as well as the information available in our files, presents substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted due to the overutilization of the species for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

C. Disease or Predation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition provides that the eastern diamondback rattlesnake has 
a long list of likely natural predators, including

[[Page 27408]]

ungulates, raccoons, opossum, dogs, cats, raptors, storks, and other 
snakes (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 17; Means 2011 as cited in the 
petition on p. 21). However, natural predation does not appear to be a 
threat to the snake. In addition, the petition provides that disease 
does not appear to be a threat to the eastern diamondback and provided 
no additional information concerning the potential threat of diseases 
to the eastern diamondback (Petition, p. 21).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Information concerning predation and diseases of the eastern 
diamondback rattlesnake in the Service's files is similar to the 
information presented in the petition. Young and adult eastern 
diamondbacks are predated upon. According to Timmerman and Martin 
(2003, p. 17), there have been numerous species of wildlife implicated 
in the death of even the largest of rattlesnakes, including swine, 
raccoons, otters, dogs, cats, raptorial birds, storks, eastern indigo 
snakes, king snakes, black snakes, coral snakes, and the river frog 
(Rana heckscheri). A white-tailed deer was observed stomping a radio-
tagged male eastern diamondback (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 17). 
However, the Service has no information in our files that indicates the 
level of impact resulting from predation by other wildlife (native and 
non-native) has resulted in population-level effects.
    The petition does not provide any information about disease in 
eastern diamondback rattlesnakes. The Service has no information in our 
files on diseases that affect or could affect the species. Wilson and 
Porras (1983 as cited in Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 21) reported 
that the eastern diamondback was one of several south Florida species 
that were occasionally found emaciated and lethargic. The reasons were 
unknown, and specimens sent for pathological analysis turned up no 
evidence of bacteriological or parasitic infestation.
    In summary, we find that the information presented in the petition, 
as well as the information available in our files, does not present 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted due to disease or predation.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition contends that populations of the eastern diamondback 
rattlesnake are closely correlated with the amount and condition of 
open-canopy pine, particularly longleaf pine forests. The petition 
states that the species' range reduction, habitat loss, and degradation 
are contributing heavily to the population reduction of the eastern 
diamondback. Approximately 34 percent of remaining longleaf pine 
habitats occur on federally owned lands, 11 percent occur on State or 
locally-owned lands, and 55 percent on privately owned lands (Means 
2011 as cited in the petition on p. 22).
    The petition presents information that the loss of longleaf pine 
savannas is the single most important factor affecting the survival of 
the eastern diamondback rattlesnake. While there are ongoing 
restoration efforts that vary in scale and land ownership, nearly all 
of the efforts are purely voluntary and without dedicated funding. 
Uncertainty remains as to whether these actions will continue in the 
future. In addition, the petition asserts that, none of the efforts to 
restore longleaf pine are specifically aimed at protecting eastern 
diamondbacks. They also assert that on Federal lands the conservation 
and restoration programs are not legally mandated or require monitoring 
to measure success of habitat improvements. The petition states as a 
consequence, because these regulatory mechanisms are lacking, they are 
inadequate and a threat to the eastern diamondback (Petition, pp. 22-
23).
    The petition also contends that habitat for the eastern diamondback 
rattlesnake is inadequately protected under State law or on State 
lands. The petitioners indicate they are unaware of any State 
regulations providing permitting oversight or requiring conservation 
benefit to eastern diamondbacks. The eastern diamondback receives some 
benefit from State regulations protecting gopher tortoise habitat, but 
only in Florida where there are some regulations (Petition, p. 24). 
Habitat on State-managed lands is protected in small amounts but is 
inadequate because the management actions are not conducted to 
specifically benefit the eastern diamondback (Petition, p. 24).
    The petition indicates that the majority of remaining longleaf pine 
is on private lands, where habitat is being rapidly lost and not all 
regenerated to longleaf pine. Modest conservation value is derived from 
voluntary participation with restoration programs. In addition to 
restoration, land acquisition programs are in place. While the eastern 
diamondback would likely benefit from these acquisitions, the amount of 
habitat that will be conserved and the distribution of extant 
diamondback populations on these properties is not known. The petition 
states that these efforts are purely voluntary and, therefore, are not 
adequate to protect the snakes (Petition, p. 24).
    Regarding human exploitation, among the States, only North Carolina 
provides legal protection for the eastern diamondback rattlesnake where 
it is State-listed as endangered. The eastern diamondback is listed as 
a species of special concern in South Carolina, Alabama, and Florida, 
but the petition contends that these designations provide no legal or 
regulatory protection (Petition, p. 26). Georgia has a law that 
prohibits the taking of nongame wildlife, but venomous snakes are 
specifically excluded (Petition, p. 26). In other words, eastern 
diamondbacks are wholly unprotected in South Carolina, Georgia, 
Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. According to the 
petition, unlimited numbers of the snakes may be killed in all but one 
of the seven States, and, therefore, the lack of regulatory mechanisms 
facilitates overexploitation of the species. The petition concludes 
that inadequacy is a factor threatening the species (Petition, pp. 26-
27).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
Federal Regulatory Mechanisms
    Federal lands within the historical range of the eastern 
diamondback rattlesnake are managed by the Department of the Interior 
(units of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuges, and 
Bureau of Land Management (small areas)), Department of Agriculture 
(U.S. Forest Service), and Department of Defense (DOD) (U.S. Air Force, 
U.S. Army, and U.S. Navy). These Federal land owners or managers are 
tasked with implementing natural resource management plans that include 
conservation and restoration of habitats and species and regulation of 
activities related to agency mission, other land users, and visitors. 
As general conservation programs, these programs are adequate on 
Federal lands. However, threats to the eastern diamondback may remain 
because of lack of implementation, compliance, or enforcement or 
because these programs do not target conservation of the species. Lack 
of implementation or compliance may be a result of funding, work 
priorities, and staffing. The Service has no information concerning the 
implementation of the plans and enforcement of regulations protecting

[[Page 27409]]

the snake from harm. Insufficient implementation or enforcement could 
become a threat to the species in the future if the species continues 
to decline in numbers on Federal lands. In addition, the Service is not 
aware that any of these Federal land programs have management actions 
geared specifically to benefit eastern diamondbacks.
    Eastern diamondback rattlesnakes overlap suitable habitats with 
other federally protected species and derive conservation benefits 
through their protection. Eastern diamondbacks share suitable habitat 
with the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi) and the gopher 
tortoise. Indigo snakes are listed as threatened under the Act (January 
31, 1978; 50 CFR part 17.11(h)). Gopher tortoises are listed as 
threatened under the Act in the western portion of their range (west of 
the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana) 
(July 7, 1987; 50 CFR part 17.11(h)). No critical habitat is designated 
for either the indigo snake or the gopher tortoise listed in the 
western portion of its range.
State Regulatory Mechanisms
    The petition suggests that eastern diamondback rattlesnakes are 
protected by state law only in North Carolina (NC ST Sec.  113-331-350) 
and are wholly unprotected in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, 
Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. This is not entirely accurate. 
State parks and other State lands are governed by regulations (which 
are based in State statutes) that protect the snake inasmuch as they 
protect all other species of wildlife. For example in State Parks in 
Florida, all plants, animals and park property are protected and their 
collection, destruction or disturbance of plants, animals or park 
property is prohibited (F.S. Chap. 258.008(b) and (c)). In South 
Carolina, killing, harming, or harassing any mammal, bird, reptile, or 
amphibian, except by permit issued by the South Carolina Department of 
Natural Resources for designated Game Management Areas is unlawful 
(Title 51--Parks, Recreation and Tourism, Chap. 3, State Parks, Sec. 
51-3-145 (B)). In Georgia any person who hunts, traps, fishes, 
possesses, or transports wildlife in violation of the wildlife laws and 
regulations violates the conditions under which this right is extended; 
and any wildlife then on his person or within his immediate possession 
is deemed to be wildlife possessed in violation of the law and is 
subject to seizure by the department pursuant to Georgia Code Section 
27-1-21 (Georgia Code Section 27-1-3). On the other hand, if the rules 
do not result in compliance or are not adequately enforced, this could 
render the rules relatively inconsequential in providing real 
protection for the snake. The Service has no information concerning the 
compliance with or the enforcement of the State regulations.
    While regulations to protect habitat and wildlife in general on 
Federal and State public lands do exist, almost none specifically 
target protection of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake. Approximately 
45 percent of the snake's remaining habitat is under public ownership, 
and the remaining 55 percent of the habitat is on private lands.
Private Lands
    Existing land use regulations on private lands within the eastern 
diamondback rattlesnake's historical range are implemented by the 
individual States and local governments. With the exception of North 
Carolina's State protection, the Service is aware of no regulatory 
mechanisms that are in place and specifically intended to protect the 
eastern diamondback. Projections of nationwide rural land development 
excluding Federal lands are largest in the Southeast at 15 percent 
(White et al. 2008, p. 10). The spatial arrangement of rural lands that 
are converted to developed uses, even for small areas, may magnify the 
ecological impacts from urbanization, including the loss of wildlife 
habitat (White et al. 2008, p. 10). Only in the last decade has the 
concept of green infrastructure that balances development and land 
protection (benefits wildlife like the eastern diamondback) evolved 
from a novelty practice to a national planning method (https://www.conservationfund.org/green_infrastructure). This may be due in 
part to the scarcity of undeveloped land areas and the realization of 
their importance for ecological conservation (water quality, habitat, 
and wildlife), safety (wildfires), and the amenities afforded by living 
in close proximity to them (recreation, aesthetics, green space, and 
land values) (White et al. 2008, p. 11).
    Long-term survival of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake will 
depend almost entirely upon lands set aside for conservation (Timmerman 
and Martin 2003, p. 41). The Service finds that there are regulatory 
mechanisms in place in the form of State and Federal regulations 
governing their respective owned and managed lands. However, 
implementation, compliance, or enforcement of the regulations is 
important to the conservation of the eastern diamondback and currently 
is unknown.
    The petition suggests that there are no existing regulations that 
protect the eastern diamondback rattlesnake and thus regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate by their absence. There are regulatory 
mechanisms in place on State and Federal lands that lend protection in 
general to all wildlife; while not specific to the eastern diamondback, 
they do provide protection to the species. Thus, there are existing 
regulatory mechanisms that protect the eastern diamondback contrary to 
the assertions in the petition. The implementation of, compliance with, 
and enforcement of those regulatory mechanisms are unknown.
    Thus, the information provided in our files does not support the 
conclusion stated in the petition that there are no existing regulatory 
mechanisms to protect the eastern diamondback rattlesnake. However, the 
information in our files supports the conclusion that the existing 
regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate because there is no evidence 
that existing implementation of, compliance with, and enforcement of 
the mechanisms is effective in protecting the eastern diamondback on 
private, local, State, or Federal lands.
    In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition 
and the Service's files provide substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due 
to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms that address 
threats to the eastern diamondback rattlesnake.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition asserts that human-caused climate change is a factor 
that may impact the eastern diamondback rattlesnake. The petition 
indicates that, because the species is restricted to coastal areas (0 
to 1,640 ft (0 to 500 m) above sea level), rising sea levels due to 
climate change may inundate some habitat occupied by the species and 
the species may not be able to adapt to changes in the climate at a 
rate needed for survival. The petition also addresses possible threats 
to the eastern diamondback from pesticide use, snakes killed out of 
fear, and the inadequate amount of prescribed fire to maintain good 
quality habitat. Each of these potential threats is addressed below.
    An amendment to the petition provided a paper (Lawing and Polly 
2011, entire) on rattlesnakes and climate change. Lawing and Polly 
(2011, p. 2)

[[Page 27410]]

present that snakes are particularly useful for understanding the 
effects of climate change on terrestrial vertebrate species because 
their ectothermic (controlling body temperature by external means) 
physiology is highly dependent on the ambient temperature. Lawing and 
Polly (2011, p. 2) chose rattlesnakes for their climate modeling 
because the geographic distributions of some species extend north of 
former glacial margins, assuring that their geographic distributions 
have, in fact, changed over recent geological history. Climate models 
were examined predicting the probable suitable habitat at the year 
2100, under a climate change increase of 1.1 degrees Centigrade (C) (34 
degrees Fahrenheit (F)) and 6.4 degrees C (43.5 F). The models predict 
for the eastern diamondback rattlesnake a great reduction in suitable 
habitat availability by 2100 with an average change of 1.1 degrees C 
(34 degrees F), and zero suitable habitat availability by the year 2100 
with an average increase of 6.4 degrees C (43.5 degrees F) (Lawing and 
Polly 2011, p. 11). The study essentially says that the eastern 
diamondback rattlesnake is one of these particularly sensitive species, 
and that the rate of climate change and the subsequent changes to 
suitable habitat will likely occur too quickly for the eastern 
diamondback rattlesnake to adapt and survive because suitable habitat 
will diminish significantly, and disappear altogether at the extreme 
change of 6.4 degrees C (43.5 F) by 2100 (Lawing and Polly 2011, p. 
11).
    The petition indicates that the eastern diamondback rattlesnake may 
be susceptible to pesticide poisoning, but the extent of this threat is 
unknown (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 21). No other information is 
provided in the petition relative to threats of pesticides on the 
snake.
    The petition asserts that the eastern diamondback rattlesnake is 
one of the most heavily persecuted reptiles in the eastern United 
States (Timmerman and Martin 2003, p. 41). The eastern diamondback 
rattlesnake is feared by many people (as are snakes in general, 
venomous and non-venomous) and often are killed whenever and wherever 
they are encountered (Petition, p. 21). Human persecution is a primary 
threat to the eastern diamondback and has contributed significantly to 
the decline of the species (Petition, p. 21).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and in Service Files
    The petition did not provide any information supporting the 
conclusion that pesticides are a current or potential threat to the 
eastern diamondback rattlesnake. The Service has no information in our 
files on pesticides and impacts to the eastern diamondback.
    The petition presents documentation and other information about the 
killing of eastern diamondback rattlesnakes by humans out of fear, 
malice, adventure, and excitement. The petition asserts that killing of 
this type has contributed significantly to the decline of the eastern 
diamondback. However, none of the information presented in the petition 
clearly distinguishes the difference between commercial collection or 
harvest and killing for other reasons and contribution to the species' 
decline. While the Service has no specific information in our files 
related to killing of eastern diamondbacks because of fear of or 
malice, we are cognizant of the public's concern about venomous animals 
in general and the responses to those fears. We are aware of inaccurate 
and largely undeserved folklore that result in eastern diamondbacks and 
other snakes being killed simply because they exist, or for adventure 
and excitement (Means 2009, p. 1).
    Consideration of ongoing and projected climate change is a 
component of our analyses under the Act. Described in general terms, 
``climate change'' refers to a change in the mean or variability of one 
or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that 
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether 
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or 
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 78). Various 
types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on 
species, and these may be positive or negative depending on the species 
and other relevant considerations, including interacting effects with 
existing habitat fragmentation or other non-climate variables.
    Information provided in the petition concerning the potential for 
negative effects to the eastern diamondback rattlesnake from climate 
change presents compelling scenarios. However, there is no information 
in Service files concerning the eastern diamondback and climate change.
    Ecologists consider fire suppression to be the primary reason for 
the degradation of remaining longleaf pine forest habitat (Wolfe et al. 
1988, p. 132). Prescribed burning is a significant part of many habitat 
management plans on private and public lands. However, the 
implementation of prescribed burning has been inconsistent due to 
financial constraints and limitations of weather (drought, wind 
direction, etc.) that restrict the number of opportunities to burn 
(Kaufman et al., undated, pp. 2, 4-8). Many State and Federal lands use 
prescribed fire to restore and maintain fire-dependent plant 
communities and habitats as part of their respective management plans. 
This is usually beneficial to the eastern diamondback rattlesnake, as 
it is to other species that depend on fire dependent open-canopy pine 
forests for survival. Even though this action helps maintain and 
restore habitat necessary for the survival of the eastern diamondback, 
remaining suitable habitat is a fraction of the historical range. The 
prescribed burn programs of State and Federal lands, as well as some 
large tracts of private lands, improve and restore habitat important to 
the eastern diamondback, however much more fire management is needed to 
maintain and restore current and historical portions of its range. 
Additionally, fire management is often impeded by unsuitable weather, 
dangerous burn conditions, lack of funding, concern of adjacent 
landowners, or unwillingness to burn in difficult conditions because of 
safety issues. Often, prescribed fire management focuses more on 
reducing fuel loading and lessening the potential for wildfire than on 
maintaining high-quality areas with respect to habitat suitability for 
eastern diamondback rattlesnakes (Kaufman et al. undated, pp. 2, 4-8). 
In other words, there may simply not be enough prescribed fire in terms 
of area or frequency to restore or maintain the open-canopy habitats on 
which the eastern diamondback depends.
    In summary, the Service finds that the petition and information in 
our files does not provide substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted due to the effects 
of pesticide use or snakes killed out of fear or for adventure. 
However, prescribed fire is one of the most important tools for 
restoration and maintenance of suitable habitat for the eastern 
diamondback rattlesnake. Based on the information available to this 
assessment, the limited area and frequency of prescribed fire occurring 
for restoration and maintenance of suitable habitat may pose a 
significant threat to the continued existence of the eastern 
diamondback. Additionally, new scientific information and modeling data 
cited in the petition are demonstrating that the eastern diamondback 
may not likely be able to adapt to the change and more importantly, the 
rate of change, in its habitat due to climate change.

[[Page 27411]]

    Therefore, the Service finds that the information provided in the 
petition, as well as other information in our files, presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted due to other natural or manmade 
factors.

Finding

    On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 
Act, we determine that the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing the eastern diamondback 
rattlesnake throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding 
is based on information provided under factors A, B, D, and E. We 
determine that the information provided under factor C is not 
substantial.
    Because we have found that the petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing the eastern diamondback rattlesnake 
may be warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine 
whether listing the eastern diamondback rattlesnake under the Act is 
warranted.
    The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding 
differs from the Endangered Species Act's ``best scientific and 
commercial data'' standard that applies to a status review to determine 
whether a petitioned action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not 
constitute a status review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we 
will determine whether a petitioned action is warranted after we have 
completed a thorough status review of the species, which is conducted 
following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 
90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a 
substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will 
result in a warranted finding.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Panama City, FL, 
Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Panama City, FL, Ecological Services Office.

Authority

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

    Dated: May 1, 2012.
David L. Cottingham,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-11230 Filed 5-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P