Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Rosemont Talussnail as Endangered or Threatened, 18936-18938 [2013-07149]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
18936
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0920; FRL–9779–1]
Revision to the California State
Implementation Plan, South Coast Air
Quality Management Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a revision to the South Coast portion of
the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). This revision concerns
volatile organic compounds from
organic liquid storage. We are proposing
to approve a local rule to regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Any comments on this proposal
must arrive by April 29, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number [EPA–R09–
OAR–2012–0920], by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send email
directly to EPA, your email address will
be automatically captured and included
as part of the public comment. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are available
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:19 Mar 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
electronically at www.regulations.gov
and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105–3901. While all
documents in the docket are listed at
www.regulations.gov, some information
may be publicly available only at the
hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material, large maps), and some may not
be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cara
Peck, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3382,
peck.cara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposal addresses the following local
rule: SCAQMD Rule 463 Organic Liquid
Storage. In the Rules and Regulations
section of this Federal Register, we are
approving this local rule in a direct final
action without prior proposal because
we believe these SIP revisions are not
controversial. If we receive adverse
comments, however, we will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule and address the comments in
subsequent action based on this
proposed rule.
We do not plan to open a second
comment period, so anyone interested
in commenting should do so at this
time. If we do not receive adverse
comments, no further activity is
planned. For further information, please
see the direct final action.
Dated: January 25, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2013–06427 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0058;
4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List the Rosemont
Talussnail as Endangered or
Threatened
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 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
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Rosemont talussnail as endangered
or threatened and to designate critical
habitat under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a
review of the best available scientific
information, we find that listing the
Rosemont talussnail as an endangered
or threatened species is not warranted,
and, therefore, we are removing this
species from the candidate list.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on March 28, 2013.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R2–ES–2013–0058. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, 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. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding to the
above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office, 2321
W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103,
Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone 602–242–
0210; facsimile 602–242–2513; email
incomingazcorr@fws.gov. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for
any petition to revise the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants that contains substantial
scientific or commercial information
that listing the species may be
warranted, we make a finding within 12
months of the date of receipt of the
petition. In this finding, we will
determine that the petitioned action is:
(1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3)
warranted, but the immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the
petitioned action is precluded by other
pending proposals to determine whether
species are endangered or threatened,
and expeditious progress is being made
to add or remove qualified species from
the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested
action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the
date of such finding, that is, requiring a
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
subsequent finding to be made within
12 months. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register.
This section summarizes the
information we evaluated in order to
determine that the Rosemont talussnail
is not a species or subspecies and
cannot be listed as such under the Act,
and to remove it from the candidate list.
Additional material that we relied on is
available in the Species Assessment and
Listing Priority Assignment Form for the
Rosemont talussnail. This form is
available on our national endangered
species Web site: https://www.fws.gov/
endangered/ (search for ‘‘Rosemont
talussnail’’ in the Species Search box) or
from the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. In the
Search box, enter FWS–R2–ES–2013–
0058, which is the docket number for
this rulemaking.
Previous Federal Actions
On June 24, 2010, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity requesting that Rosemont
talussnail be listed as endangered or
threatened and that critical habitat be
designated under the Act. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner required
at 50 CFR 424.14(a). Our receipt of the
petition coincidentally fell within the
processing period for our candidate
notice of review (CNOR) for Fiscal Year
2010. On November 10, 2010, we
included the Rosemont talussnail in the
annual CNOR (75 FR 69222) through
our own internal candidate assessment
process and independent of the petition
process, because we had already begun
the analysis prior to receiving the
petition. Candidate species are species
for which we have sufficient
information on file to support a
proposal to list as endangered or
threatened, but for which preparation
and publication of a proposal is
precluded by higher priority listing
actions. However, because we are
required to address the petition and
make the appropriate findings, even
though we already determined the
species met the definition of a candidate
species, in that same CNOR, we made a
90-day substantial and a 12-month
warranted-but-precluded finding for the
Rosemont talussnail.
In a December 1, 2011, letter, we
informed the petitioner that we had
reviewed the information presented in
the petition and determined that issuing
an emergency regulation temporarily
listing the Rosemont talussnail under
section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not
warranted. We explained that the
species had been assigned candidate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:19 Mar 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
status. We also explained that per the
Multi-district Litigation Stipulated
Settlement Agreement (WildEarth
Guardians v. Salazar, No. 1:10-mc00377-EGS (D. DC); Center for Biological
Diversity v. Salazar, No. 1:10-mc-00377EGS (D.DC)), we are required to submit
a proposed rule or a not-warranted
12-month finding to the Federal
Register for the Rosemont talussnail in
Fiscal Year 2013, which ends September
30, 2013. This not-warranted 12-month
finding and the associated species
assessment form fulfill that requirement
of the Multi-district Litigation
Settlement Agreement.
Species Information
The Rosemont talussnail was first
described as a member of the family
Helminthoglyptidae (Phylum Mollusca;
Class Gastropoda, Subclass Pulmonata)
described by Pilsbry (1939, pp. 348–
349) from the northern end of the Santa
Rita Mountains near Rosemont, Pima
County, Arizona. Bequaert and Miller
(1973, p. 115) and Turgeon et al. (1988,
p. 146) subsequently recognized the
Rosemont talussnail in their respective
reviews of mollusks. However, Hoffman
et al. (2012, pp. 310–313) recently
demonstrated that the Rosemont
talussnail was described in error and is
actually the same species as the Santa
Rita talussnail (Sonorella walkeri).
Initially, Pilsbry and Ferriss (1923, p.
90) treated the Rosemont talussnail from
the northern end of the Santa Rita
Mountains (Station 49 near Rosemont)
as Sonorella hesterna .Pilsbry (1939, p.
349) later described the Rosemont
talussnail as a full species, S.
rosemontensis, based on a single shell
collected at Station 49 (Ferriss 1917–
1918, p. 2; Hoffman et al. 2012, pp. 1–
2). However, in his description of S.
rosemontensis, Pilsbry (1939, p. 349)
stated, ‘‘It was formerly considered to be
identical with S. hesterna, but the well
developed threads of the embryonic
shell apparently indicate a different
species. Were it not for the very
different verge [male genitalia], this
form would hardly be separated from S.
walkeri.’’ Hoffman et al. (2012, p. 309)
determined that Pilsbry (1939) confused
the shell of the specimen he dissected
with that of S. hesterna, and mistakenly
dissected the gentilia from a different
species of Sonorella. Pilsbry (1939, p.
349) described the genitalia as ‘‘very
closely related to S. arida * * * being
of the same general character.’’ Based on
his writings, Pilsbry was well aware of
the fact that the distinct features of S.
rosemontensis resembled two different
known species.
The disparities in reproductive
structures described for the Rosemont
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18937
talussnail, Sonorella rosemontensis,
were first noted in earnest by Miller
(1967, p. 70) where he stated the
genitalia ‘‘resemble those of S. walkeri.’’
In discussing the Pilsbry (1939)
description, Miller (1967, p. 70) went on
to say that, ‘‘It is probable that he
[Pilsbry] dissected a specimen of S.
tumamocensis linearis by mistake.’’
Upon examination of genitalia, Miller
(1967, p. 70) stated, ‘‘S. rosemontenis is
closely related in all respects to S.
walkeri.’’ These anatomical
examinations revealed that the
Rosemont talussnail, S. rosemontensis,
closely resembles the Santa Rita
talussnail, S. walkeri, strongly
suggesting that the Rosemont talussnail
may only be a subspecies of or the same
species as the Santa Rita talussnail
(Miller 1967, p. 70; Miller 1978, p. 115).
In fact, the drawing of the reproductive
organs of the Rosemont talussnail
presented in Miller (1967, p. 260) does
not appear to differ in any significant
way from the reproductive organs of the
Santa Rita talussnail (Hoffman et al.
2012, p. 309).
Although it was suggested that the
Rosemont talussnail may be a
subspecies of the Santa Rita talussnail
(Miller 1967, p. 70; Miller 1978, p. 115),
there is no information indicating such.
A subspecies is a category in biological
classification that ranks immediately
below a species; it designates a
population of a particular geographic
region morphologically or genetically
distinguishable from other such
populations of the same species and
capable of interbreeding successfully
with them where its range overlaps
theirs. Evidence suggests that the
Rosemont and Santa Rita talussnail are
simply the same species. Hoffman et al.
(2012, p. 313) found no discernible
differences in the shapes or sizes of the
male or female reproductive organs
among specimens, nor was there any
discernible differences in the shape of
the shells between the Rosemont
talussnail and the Santa Rita talussnail.
Therefore, based on the morphological
data and the sympatric range of the
Santa Rita and the Rosemont talussnails,
Hoffman et al. (2012, p. 313) concluded
that the Rosemont and Santa Rita
talussnail are the same species.
Evaluation of Listable Entity
Under the Act, a ‘‘species’’ is defined
as including any subspecies of fish or
wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment (DPS) of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature (16
U.S.C. 1532(16)).
Based on our review of the best
available information, the original
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
18938
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Proposed Rules
description of the Rosemont talussnail
(previously Sonorella rosemontensis)
was made in error, and the taxonomic
entity is actually the same species as the
Santa Rita talussnail (S. walkeri).
Therefore, we conclude that the
Rosemont talussnail (S. rosemontensis)
is not a species under section 3(16) of
the Act. We have reviewed the relevant
literature, and we also find that the
Rosemont talussnail is not a subspecies
of the Santa Rita talussnail.
Additionally, invertebrates are
precluded by statute from DPS
consideration. Therefore, we conclude
that the petitioned entity does not
constitute a listable entity and cannot be
listed under the Act.
Finding
Based on the best scientific and
commercial information available, we
find that the Rosemont talussnail is not
a listable entity and cannot be listed
under the Act. The Rosemont talussnail
(Sonorella rosemontensis) was
subsumed into the Santa Rita talussnail
(S. walkeri), which is a widespread and
common species whose distribution
extends across southern Arizona from
the Santa Rita and Atascosa Mountain
Ranges in Santa Cruz County; the
Whetstone Mountains of Cochise
County; and south into Sonora, Mexico
(Pilsbry and Ferris 1915, p. 395;
Bequaert and Miller 1973, p. 115;
Arizona Game and Fish Department
2008, p. 2). Please submit any new
information concerning the status of, or
threats to, the Santa Rita talussnail to
our Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office (see ADDRESSES) whenever it
becomes available. New information
will help us monitor the Santa Rita
talussnail and encourage its
conservation.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R2–ES–2013–0058, in the Species
Assessment and Listing Priority
Assignment Form on the Internet at
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/, and
upon request from the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff members of the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office.
Authority
The authority for this section is
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:19 Mar 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
Dated: March 15, 2013.
Rowan W. Gould,
Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–07149 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0025;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–AZ43
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Listing as Endangered and
Designation of Critical Habitat for
˜
Acuna Cactus and the Fickeisen Plains
Cactus
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period
on our October 3, 2012, proposal to add
˜
the acuna cactus and Fickeisen plains
cactus to the list of endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). We also
announce the reopening of comment on
our October 3, 2012, proposal to
˜
designate critical habitat for the acuna
cactus and Fickeisen plains cactus and
the availability of a draft economic
analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat and an amended
required determinations section for the
proposal. We are reopening the
comment period to allow all interested
parties an opportunity to comment
simultaneously on the proposals, the
associated draft economic analysis for
the critical habitat designation, and the
amended required determinations.
Comments previously submitted need
not be resubmitted, as they will be fully
considered in preparation of the final
rules.
DATES: We will consider comments
received or postmarked on or before
April 29, 2013. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES
section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
date. Any comments that we receive
after the closing date may not be
considered in the final decisions on
these actions.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You
may obtain copies of the October 3,
2012, proposed rule on the internet at
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0061 or by mail
from the Arizona Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain
a copy of the draft economic analysis at
Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0025.
Written comments: You may submit
written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
on the listing proposal to Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2012–0061, and submit
comments on the critical habitat
proposal and associated draft economic
analysis to Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–
2013–0025. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for an explanation of the
two dockets.
(2) By hard copy: Submit comment on
the listing proposal by U.S. mail or
hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2012–
0061; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
Submit comment on the critical habitat
proposal and draft economic analysis by
U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments processing, Attn. FWS–R2–
ES–2013–0025; 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 comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office, 2321
W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103,
Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone (602)
242–0210; facsimile (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:
Public Comments
We are reopening the comment period
for our proposed listing determination
and proposed critical habitat
designation for Echinomastus
˜
erectocentrus var. acunensis (acuna
cactus) and Pediocactus peeblesianus
var. fickeiseniae (Fickeisen plains
cactus) that was published in the
Federal Register on October 3, 2012 (77
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18936-18938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07149]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0058; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Rosemont Talussnail as Endangered or
Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the Rosemont talussnail as
endangered or threatened and to designate critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a review of the
best available scientific information, we find that listing the
Rosemont talussnail as an endangered or threatened species is not
warranted, and, therefore, we are removing this species from the
candidate list.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on March 28,
2013.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2013-0058. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, 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. Please submit
any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this
finding to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office,
2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone 602-
242-0210; facsimile 602-242-2513; email incomingazcorr@fws.gov. If you
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition.
In this finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (1)
Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate
proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are
endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add
or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires
that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a
[[Page 18937]]
subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these
12-month findings in the Federal Register.
This section summarizes the information we evaluated in order to
determine that the Rosemont talussnail is not a species or subspecies
and cannot be listed as such under the Act, and to remove it from the
candidate list. Additional material that we relied on is available in
the Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form for the
Rosemont talussnail. This form is available on our national endangered
species Web site: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (search for ``Rosemont
talussnail'' in the Species Search box) or from the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-
2013-0058, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
Previous Federal Actions
On June 24, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity requesting that Rosemont talussnail be listed as
endangered or threatened and that critical habitat be designated under
the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included
the requisite identification information for the petitioner required at
50 CFR 424.14(a). Our receipt of the petition coincidentally fell
within the processing period for our candidate notice of review (CNOR)
for Fiscal Year 2010. On November 10, 2010, we included the Rosemont
talussnail in the annual CNOR (75 FR 69222) through our own internal
candidate assessment process and independent of the petition process,
because we had already begun the analysis prior to receiving the
petition. Candidate species are species for which we have sufficient
information on file to support a proposal to list as endangered or
threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is
precluded by higher priority listing actions. However, because we are
required to address the petition and make the appropriate findings,
even though we already determined the species met the definition of a
candidate species, in that same CNOR, we made a 90-day substantial and
a 12-month warranted-but-precluded finding for the Rosemont talussnail.
In a December 1, 2011, letter, we informed the petitioner that we
had reviewed the information presented in the petition and determined
that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the Rosemont
talussnail under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We
explained that the species had been assigned candidate status. We also
explained that per the Multi-district Litigation Stipulated Settlement
Agreement (WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. 1:10-mc-00377-EGS (D.
DC); Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, No. 1:10-mc-00377-EGS
(D.DC)), we are required to submit a proposed rule or a not-warranted
12-month finding to the Federal Register for the Rosemont talussnail in
Fiscal Year 2013, which ends September 30, 2013. This not-warranted 12-
month finding and the associated species assessment form fulfill that
requirement of the Multi-district Litigation Settlement Agreement.
Species Information
The Rosemont talussnail was first described as a member of the
family Helminthoglyptidae (Phylum Mollusca; Class Gastropoda, Subclass
Pulmonata) described by Pilsbry (1939, pp. 348-349) from the northern
end of the Santa Rita Mountains near Rosemont, Pima County, Arizona.
Bequaert and Miller (1973, p. 115) and Turgeon et al. (1988, p. 146)
subsequently recognized the Rosemont talussnail in their respective
reviews of mollusks. However, Hoffman et al. (2012, pp. 310-313)
recently demonstrated that the Rosemont talussnail was described in
error and is actually the same species as the Santa Rita talussnail
(Sonorella walkeri).
Initially, Pilsbry and Ferriss (1923, p. 90) treated the Rosemont
talussnail from the northern end of the Santa Rita Mountains (Station
49 near Rosemont) as Sonorella hesterna .Pilsbry (1939, p. 349) later
described the Rosemont talussnail as a full species, S. rosemontensis,
based on a single shell collected at Station 49 (Ferriss 1917-1918, p.
2; Hoffman et al. 2012, pp. 1-2). However, in his description of S.
rosemontensis, Pilsbry (1939, p. 349) stated, ``It was formerly
considered to be identical with S. hesterna, but the well developed
threads of the embryonic shell apparently indicate a different species.
Were it not for the very different verge [male genitalia], this form
would hardly be separated from S. walkeri.'' Hoffman et al. (2012, p.
309) determined that Pilsbry (1939) confused the shell of the specimen
he dissected with that of S. hesterna, and mistakenly dissected the
gentilia from a different species of Sonorella. Pilsbry (1939, p. 349)
described the genitalia as ``very closely related to S. arida * * *
being of the same general character.'' Based on his writings, Pilsbry
was well aware of the fact that the distinct features of S.
rosemontensis resembled two different known species.
The disparities in reproductive structures described for the
Rosemont talussnail, Sonorella rosemontensis, were first noted in
earnest by Miller (1967, p. 70) where he stated the genitalia
``resemble those of S. walkeri.'' In discussing the Pilsbry (1939)
description, Miller (1967, p. 70) went on to say that, ``It is probable
that he [Pilsbry] dissected a specimen of S. tumamocensis linearis by
mistake.'' Upon examination of genitalia, Miller (1967, p. 70) stated,
``S. rosemontenis is closely related in all respects to S. walkeri.''
These anatomical examinations revealed that the Rosemont talussnail, S.
rosemontensis, closely resembles the Santa Rita talussnail, S. walkeri,
strongly suggesting that the Rosemont talussnail may only be a
subspecies of or the same species as the Santa Rita talussnail (Miller
1967, p. 70; Miller 1978, p. 115). In fact, the drawing of the
reproductive organs of the Rosemont talussnail presented in Miller
(1967, p. 260) does not appear to differ in any significant way from
the reproductive organs of the Santa Rita talussnail (Hoffman et al.
2012, p. 309).
Although it was suggested that the Rosemont talussnail may be a
subspecies of the Santa Rita talussnail (Miller 1967, p. 70; Miller
1978, p. 115), there is no information indicating such. A subspecies is
a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a
species; it designates a population of a particular geographic region
morphologically or genetically distinguishable from other such
populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding
successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs. Evidence
suggests that the Rosemont and Santa Rita talussnail are simply the
same species. Hoffman et al. (2012, p. 313) found no discernible
differences in the shapes or sizes of the male or female reproductive
organs among specimens, nor was there any discernible differences in
the shape of the shells between the Rosemont talussnail and the Santa
Rita talussnail. Therefore, based on the morphological data and the
sympatric range of the Santa Rita and the Rosemont talussnails, Hoffman
et al. (2012, p. 313) concluded that the Rosemont and Santa Rita
talussnail are the same species.
Evaluation of Listable Entity
Under the Act, a ``species'' is defined as including any subspecies
of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment
(DPS) of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds
when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)).
Based on our review of the best available information, the original
[[Page 18938]]
description of the Rosemont talussnail (previously Sonorella
rosemontensis) was made in error, and the taxonomic entity is actually
the same species as the Santa Rita talussnail (S. walkeri). Therefore,
we conclude that the Rosemont talussnail (S. rosemontensis) is not a
species under section 3(16) of the Act. We have reviewed the relevant
literature, and we also find that the Rosemont talussnail is not a
subspecies of the Santa Rita talussnail. Additionally, invertebrates
are precluded by statute from DPS consideration. Therefore, we conclude
that the petitioned entity does not constitute a listable entity and
cannot be listed under the Act.
Finding
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available,
we find that the Rosemont talussnail is not a listable entity and
cannot be listed under the Act. The Rosemont talussnail (Sonorella
rosemontensis) was subsumed into the Santa Rita talussnail (S.
walkeri), which is a widespread and common species whose distribution
extends across southern Arizona from the Santa Rita and Atascosa
Mountain Ranges in Santa Cruz County; the Whetstone Mountains of
Cochise County; and south into Sonora, Mexico (Pilsbry and Ferris 1915,
p. 395; Bequaert and Miller 1973, p. 115; Arizona Game and Fish
Department 2008, p. 2). Please submit any new information concerning
the status of, or threats to, the Santa Rita talussnail to our Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes
available. New information will help us monitor the Santa Rita
talussnail and encourage its conservation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2013-0058, in the
Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form on the Internet
at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/, and upon request from the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office.
Authority
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: March 15, 2013.
Rowan W. Gould,
Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-07149 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
