Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake as Endangered or Threatened, 56730-56738 [2014-22331]
Download as PDF
56730
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules
(42) PS Minnesota Unit 20, Polk
County, Minnesota. Map of PS
Minnesota Unit 20 follows:
*
*
*
*
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Dated: September 15, 2014.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014–22577 Filed 9–22–14; 8:45 am]
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2014–0035:
4500030113]
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake
(Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as an
endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After a review of the
best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake as an
endangered or threatened species is not
warranted, and, therefore, we are
SUMMARY:
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List the Tucson Shovelnosed Snake as Endangered or
Threatened
16:59 Sep 22, 2014
Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
ACTION:
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
EP23SE14.020
*
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
removing this subspecies from our
candidate list.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on September 23,
2014.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R2–ES–2014–0035. 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
subsequent finding to be made within
12 months. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
We received a petition, dated
December 15, 2004, from the Center for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
Biological Diversity requesting that we
list the Tucson shovel-nosed snake
(Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as an
endangered or threatened species
throughout its range and designate
critical habitat within its range in the
United States. The petition, which was
clearly identified as such, contained
detailed information on the natural
history, biology, current status, and
distribution of the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake. It also contained information on
what the petitioner reported as potential
threats to the subspecies from urban
development, agricultural practices,
collecting, inadequacy of existing
regulations, drought, and climate
change. In response to the petitioner’s
requests, we sent a letter to the
petitioner, dated September 7, 2005,
explaining that, due to funding
constraints in fiscal year 2005, we
would not be able to address the
petition in a timely manner. On
February 28, 2006, the petitioner filed a
60-day notice of intent to sue the
Department of the Interior for failure to
issue 90-day and 12-month findings,
and a proposed listing rule, as
appropriate, in response to the petition
as required by 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)
and (B). In response to the notice of
intent to sue, we announced our
intention to submit a 90-day finding to
the Federal Register as expeditiously as
possible.
On July 29, 2008, we published in the
Federal Register (73 FR 43905) our 90day finding that the petition presented
substantial scientific information
indicating that listing the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake may be warranted.
On March 31, 2010 (75 FR 16050), we
published a 12-month finding on the
December 15, 2004, petition to list the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake as an
endangered or threatened species. In the
12-month finding, we found that listing
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake as an
endangered or threatened species was
warranted but precluded by higher
priority actions. Upon publication of the
12-month finding, we added the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake to the candidate list.
Candidate species are those fish,
wildlife, and plants for which we have
on file sufficient information on
biological status and threats to propose
them for listing, but for which
development of a proposed listing
regulation is precluded by other higher
priority listing activities. The Tucson
shovel-nosed snake remained a
candidate through all of our subsequent
annual candidate notices of review (75
FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR
66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994,
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56731
November 21, 2012; and 78 FR 70104,
November 22, 2013).
On September 9, 2011, the Service
entered into a settlement agreement
regarding species on the candidate list
in multi-district litigation (Endangered
Species Act Section 4 Deadline
Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), MDL
Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)),
which we refer to as the ‘‘MDL
settlement agreement. ’’ Per the MDL
settlement agreement, the Service is
required to submit a proposed rule or a
not warranted 12-month finding to the
Federal Register for the Tucson shovelnosed snake in Fiscal Year 2014, which
ends September 30, 2014. This 12month finding fulfills that requirement
of the MDL settlement agreement.
Status Assessment for the Tucson
Shovel-Nosed Snake
Introduction
We completed a Species Status
Assessment Report for the Tucson
Shovel-Nosed Snake (SSA Report;
Service 2014, entire), which is available
online at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket Number FWS–R2–ES–
2014–0035). The SSA Report provides a
thorough assessment of Tucson shovelnosed snake’s biology and natural
history, and assesses demographic risks,
threats, and limiting factors in the
context of determining viability and risk
of extinction for the subspecies. In the
SSA Report, we compile biological data
and a description of past, present, and
likely future threats (causes and effects)
facing the Tucson shovel-nosed snake.
Because data in these areas of science
are limited, some uncertainties are
associated with this assessment. Where
we have substantial uncertainty, we
have attempted to make our necessary
assumptions explicit in the SSA Report.
We base our assumptions in these areas
on the best available scientific and
commercial data. Importantly, the SSA
Report does not represent a decision by
the Service on whether this subspecies
warrants listing as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. The
SSA Report does, however, provide the
scientific basis that informs our
regulatory decision (see Summary of
Biological Status and Threats), which
involves the application of standards
within the Act and its implementing
regulations and Service policies (see
Finding).
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats
The SSA Report documents the
results of the comprehensive biological
status review for the Tucson shovelnosed snake and provides a thorough
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
56732
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules
account of the subspecies’ overall
viability and, conversely, extinction risk
(Service 2014, entire). The SSA Report
contains the data on which this finding
is based. The following is a summary of
the results and conclusions from the
SSA Report.
The Tucson shovel-nosed snake is a
small, non-venomous snake (250–425
millimeters (mm) (9.84–16.73 inches
(in)) total length) in the family
Colubridae, with a shovel-shaped snout,
an inset lower jaw, and coloring that
mimics coral snakes (Micrurus spp.)
(Mahrdt et al. 2001, p. 731.1). The
Tucson shovel-nosed snake is a
subspecies of the western shovel-nosed
snake (Chionactis occipitalis). The
western shovel-nosed snake consists of
four subspecies: Colorado Desert shovelnosed snake (C. o. annulata), Mohave
shovel-nosed snake (C. o. occipitalis),
Nevada shovel-nosed snake (C. o.
talpina), and Tucson shovel-nosed
snake. The range of the western shovelnosed snake extends from southern
Nevada and southern California, across
southwestern Arizona, and into Mexico.
Snakes of the family Colubridae, which
includes all shovel-nosed snakes, tend
to be abundant in their respective
habitats, widely distributed, and chiefly
non-venomous; the family includes the
kingsnakes, gartersnakes, and
watersnakes. The Tucson shovel-nosed
snake has been recognized as a
subspecies of the western shovel-nosed
snake since 1941. However, the original
subspecies description was based on
one color pattern variation compared to
the other subspecies. More recent
genetic studies, explained in detail
below, have clarified that the
identification of the subspecies based on
color patterning is inaccurate and leads
to under-representation of the actual
extent of the subspecies’ population.
The geographical western extent of
snakes with this distinguishing color
pattern variation was never
documented; therefore, the exact range
of the subspecies was never described
and was thought to be substantially
smaller than our current understanding
of the range as described below.
At the time of the 2008 90-day and
2010 12-month findings, we accepted
the taxonomic status and distribution of
the subspecies as described by Mahrdt
et al. (2001, entire). The range
supported by Mahrdt et al. (2001, entire)
encompassed approximately 1,149,367
hectares (ha) (2,840,147 acres (ac)) and
extended from Phoenix, Arizona, to
Tucson, Arizona. A large intergrade
zone was thought to exist where the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake’s and
Colorado Desert shovel-nosed snake’s
ranges overlapped; an intergrade zone is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
defined as an area of overlap between
the ranges of two subspecies where
individuals may possess intermediate
characters (attributes or features that
distinguish a subspecies, such as
coloration) or traits of both subspecies.
Snakes within the intergrade zone
between Tucson shovel-nosed snake
and Colorado Desert shovel-nosed snake
possessed color patterns characteristic
(or intermediate) of both subspecies.
Following our 90-day finding (July 29,
2008; 73 FR 43905), genetic studies
involving mitochondrial DNA were
conducted to help inform the taxonomy
and genetic structure of the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake and the intergrade
zone. The data from this genetic study
initially suggested that the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake was not a valid
subspecies. Therefore, we requested
peer review and input in September
2008 on the issue of taxonomic
classification and distribution of the
snake. Four out of six peer reviewers
believed that, based on genetic work by
Wood et al. (2008, entire), the
subspecies did not warrant taxonomic
recognition; however, the peer
reviewers also recognized that more
conclusive genetic studies, including
microsatellite data, were needed.
These genetic studies were not
complete until after our 2010 12-month
finding. Our 2010 12-month finding for
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake (March
31, 2010; 75 FR 16050) acknowledged
the uncertainty of the taxonomy of the
snake, but recognized the best available
scientific information continued to
recognize the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake as a subspecies. In the 2010 12month finding, we continued to
recognize the Mahrdt et al. (2001)
representation of the range (which was
limited to 1,149,367 ha (2,840,147 ac))
with a large intergrade zone with the
Colorado Desert shovel-nosed snake
subspecies) and description as the best
available science at that time. The 2010
12-month finding concluded that listing
of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake was
warranted but precluded by higher
priority listing actions.
Since the publication of our 2010 12month finding (March 31, 2010; 75 FR
16050), additional genetic work has
been conducted for the Tucson shovelnosed snake. This new genetic work
supports that the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake is a valid subspecies and that the
subspecies occupies a much larger range
than previously believed. A U.S.
Geological Survey study used both
mitochondrial DNA and 11
microsatellite loci to assess whether
patterns of population genetic structure
follow the spatial structuring of
phenotypic variation (variation in
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
observable characteristics such as shape,
color pattern, or even behavior) that
originally led to the subspecies
description and included samples from
all subspecies of the western shovelnosed snake throughout its range. The
results and data from this study were
made available to us prior to
development of this SSA Report.
We now understand that the western
boundary of the estimated range of the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake is almost
322 kilometers (km) (200 miles (mi))
west of the range described by Mahrdt
et al. (2001) and used by the Service to
represent the range of the snake in our
2010 12-month finding (see Figure 3 of
the SSA Report). The estimated range
supported in the U.S. Geological Survey
study includes approximately 2,000,655
ha (4,943,728 ac) more than the range
we identified in our 2010 12-month
finding; this represents a 274 percent
increase in our understanding of the
estimated range of the subspecies. We
recognize that there is considerable
color pattern variation throughout the
range of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake;
however, the genetic data indicate that,
despite the color pattern expressed,
snakes previously thought to be a
different subspecies within this range
are genetically Tucson shovel-nosed
snakes. Based on this new information,
the current estimated range of the snake
encompasses 3,150,022 ha (7,783,875
ac) of land.
The current estimated range of the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake includes
Pinal, Maricopa, Yavapai, Yuma, Pima,
and La Paz Counties in central and
western Arizona. Although little is
known about the specific habitat
requirements of the Tucson shovelnosed snake within its current estimated
range, the subspecies is generally found
within the Arizona Upland and Lower
Colorado River Valley subdivisions
(regions with diverse and distinctive
vegetation) of the Sonoran Desertscrub
biotic community, in areas containing:
(1) Soils comprised of soft, sandy loams,
with sparse gravel; and (2) sufficient
prey items (insects and other
arthropods). Of the total estimated
range, 1,835,591 ha (4,535,845 ac)
(approximately 58 percent) contain the
appropriate Sonoran Desertscrub habitat
for the snake (see Figure 1 of the SSA
Report).
In conducting our status assessment,
we first considered what the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake needs to ensure
viability. We generally define viability
as the ability of the species to persist
over the long term and, conversely, to
avoid extinction. We then evaluated
whether or not the vital resources
needed for the snake’s persistence
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules
currently exist and the repercussions to
the subspecies when those resources are
missing, diminished, or inaccessible.
We next consider the factors that may
interfere with the snake’s needs,
including historical, current, and future
factors. Finally, considering the
information reviewed, we evaluated the
current status and future viability of the
subspecies in terms of resiliency,
redundancy, and representation.
Resiliency is having sufficiently large
populations for the subspecies to
withstand stochastic events; in the case
of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake,
resiliency is likely best measured by the
extent of what the best available
information describes as suitable
habitat: intact Sonoran Desertscrub
vegetation that contains soft, sandy
loam soils, and supports abundant prey.
Although we do not have specific
metrics on population health or
abundance for the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake, we assume that distribution of
suitable habitat is an appropriate
surrogate to indicate resiliency for this
subspecies because snakes are
distributed throughout the entirety of
their range and we assume that these
snakes generally occupy areas where
suitable habitat exists. Redundancy is
having a sufficient number of
populations for the subspecies to
withstand catastrophic events within
part of its range and can be measured
through the duplication and distribution
of resilient populations across its range.
Representation is having the breadth of
genetic makeup of the subspecies to
adapt to changing environmental
conditions and can be measured by the
genetic diversity within and among
populations, and the ecological
diversity of populations across the
subspecies’ range. In the case of the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake, we
evaluated representation based on the
extent of the current estimated
geographical range and the variability of
habitat characteristics within this range
as indicators of genetic and ecological
diversity.
For the Tucson shovel-nosed snake to
be considered viable, individual snakes
need the specific vital resources for
survival and completion of their life
cycles. Although there is a general lack
of information regarding what the
necessary vital resources are for the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake to complete
its life cycle, one study indicated that
this snake selected habitat that included
scattered sand hummocks (low mounds
or ridges), crowned with mesquite or
other desert shrubs, which can provide
refuges for shovel-nosed snakes. The
Tucson shovel-nosed snake is also
found in creosote-mesquite floodplain
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
environments, as well as sandy dunes,
desert washes and valleys, and bajadas,
most frequently in sparsely vegetated,
sandy to gravelly habitats, and is less
abundant in rocky terrain. Specifically,
snakes are found within the Arizona
Upland and Lower Colorado River
Valley subdivisions of the Sonoran
Desertscrub biotic community, in areas
containing: (1) Soils comprised of soft,
sandy loams, with sparse gravel; and (2)
sufficient prey items (insects and other
arthropods).
We assume that the presence of the
appropriate habitat types (as described
above) throughout the subspecies’ range
provides sufficient area and suitable
habitat to support the subspecies. This
is because the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake appears to be a habitat generalist
occurring within the relatively broad
biotic community described above.
From an ecological perspective, the term
habitat generalist describes a species
that can tolerate a relatively wide range
of environmental conditions, whereas
habitat specialists can only tolerate a
relatively narrow range of
environmental conditions. Tucson
shovel-nosed snakes are often found in
open areas with sparse vegetation, and
there are no specific habitat
requirements for the percent vegetative
cover preferred by this species. Rather,
the subspecies’ general requirements
include proper soil and vegetation
types, which provide both cover from
predators and habitat for prey items.
Additionally, connectivity between
populations is essential to maintain
diversity and the ability to find mates.
Because generalists can tolerate a wider
range of environmental conditions, they
can generally adapt to minor, localized
environmental changes within their
broader habitat. Thus, the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake is likely most
sensitive to habitat changes that entirely
remove suitable habitat from the
subspecies’ range rather than changes
that result only in habitat modification.
For these reasons, we focused our
analysis in the SSA Report on
landscape-scale stressors that could
result in habitat loss.
Within the redefined range of the
subspecies, we do not have systematic
survey data for habitat or population
abundance estimates, and there are no
minimum viable population estimates
for the Tucson shovel-nosed snake.
Throughout the areas within the
subspecies’ range that have had
systematic surveys, populations of
snakes appear to be stable (available
information indicates that the species
status neither improved nor declined
since the last reporting period; i.e.,
population numbers remained constant)
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56733
and persisting according to the survey
data and analyses (Rosen 2003, entire;
Rosen 2004; all and 2008b, entire;
Arizona Game and Fish Department
2008, p. 2; Mixan and Lowery 2008,
entire; Grandmaison and Abbate 2011,
entire; Jones et al. 2011, p. 65;
Grandmaison et al. 2012, entire; Leavitt
et al. 2013a, entire). While we do not
have specific data for densities of
Tucson shovel-nosed snakes throughout
their range, collection data indicate that
the subspecies is found throughout the
entirety of its estimated range (see
Figure 6 in the SSA Report). We expect
areas of unsurveyed, suitable habitat to
support similar populations to those
areas that have been systematically
surveyed because density of a species
tends to be greatest near the center of its
range and gradually declines toward the
boundaries (Brown 1984, p. 258) and
collection data generally tends to be
biased towards areas that are more
easily accessed by surveyors, such as
along paved roads. In this case, based on
the proximity of snakes collected to
adjacent areas of unsurveyed, suitable
snake habitat, including more
inaccessible areas of suitable habitat, we
assume that the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake occupies these unsurveyed areas
where suitable habitat exists. This
conclusion is consistent with
population data for Tucson shovelnosed snakes in similar habitats
throughout its range. Each collection
location in Figure 6 of the SSA Report
represents multiple individuals
collected at each site. For example,
although there are three locality points
in La Paz County in the western portion
of the range, we have data in our files
for 11 Tucson shovel-nosed snakes
collected at those three points. Many
times, specimens are collected in close
proximity to each other and are
represented by a single point on the
map. Therefore, while Figure 6 of the
SSA Report represents what we know
regarding the distribution of the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake, it underestimates
the actual number of snakes collected or
sampled at these locations. Overall, we
expect that the subspecies’ populations
throughout the snake’s range currently
have fairly similar population
abundances to the areas that have been
surveyed (please refer to Chapter 4
‘‘Species Current Conditions’’ of the
SSA Report).
Potential threats to the viability of the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake occur in the
form of urban development, solar
facilities, and roads associated with
both urban development and solar
facilities. These various factors result in
habitat loss, thereby contributing to the
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
56734
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules
potential decline or extirpation of local
populations of Tucson shovel-nosed
snakes. Because the snake is a habitat
generalist (as described above), we
assume that the presence of the
appropriate habitat types will contribute
to the viability of the subspecies and
that the removal of these habitat types
due to development will decrease the
subspecies’ viability. Thus, the potential
threats we analyzed in the SSA Report
focus on the factors that may result in
habitat loss. We evaluated these factors
in the near term (over about the next 10
years) and into the future (over the next
11 to 50 years). Based on our analysis
of the subspecies and the factors
affecting it in the future, we believe that
50 years is the longest length of time
that we can reliably predict the future
habitat conditions of the subspecies’
range. This is because the potential
threats to the subspecies focus on loss
of suitable habitat, and our projections
of management of lands upon which the
subspecies relies is limited to
approximately 50 years.
Based on the best scientific and
commercial data available, the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake occupies a range of
3,150,022 ha (7,783,875 ac), with
1,835,591 ha (4,535,845 ac) of the
current estimated range being suitable
habitat, and habitat development will
impact only a small percentage of that
range. Currently, 608,433 ha (1,503,472
ac) of land within the estimated range
of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake falls
within 31 municipal boundaries; the
majority of the areas within these
municipal boundaries have either
already been developed or are planned
for some level of development. Large
areas of existing urban development and
planned development that overlap with
the subspecies’ habitat primarily occur
in the eastern and north-central portion
of its range along the Interstate 10
corridor between Tucson and Phoenix;
however, we do not have information to
indicate when the planned communities
will be developed or how much Tucson
shovel-nosed snake habitat would be
lost as a result. Thus, our analysis
includes the total area of all
municipalities, and we assume that all
areas would be developed within each
municipality. We did not differentiate
between existing and potential future
development; rather, we assumed all
currently or reasonably potentially
developed municipal lands would be
lost to the subspecies. These areas of
existing or potential future development
represent approximately 19 percent of
the 3,150,022 ha (7,783,875 ac) of the
current estimated range of the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake. These area of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
existing or potential future development
are 33 percent of the 1,835,591 ha
(4,535,845 ac) of Tucson shovel-nosed
snake suitable habitat. We anticipate,
but did not quantify or rely on, that the
area that would be developed would be
less than the total area described above,
resulting in a reduced contribution to
potential habitat loss than the maximum
projected if all of this development
occurs.
Lands managed by the Arizona State
Land Department (ASLD) containing
habitat for the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake are prevalent throughout much of
its range (see Figure 2 of the SSA
Report), and these ASLD lands have the
potential to be sold for development,
especially to facilitate growth around
Phoenix and in western Pinal County.
For example, Superstition Vistas, a large
master planned community of
approximately 275 square miles (712
square kilometers) located between
Florence and Apache Junction, has been
conceptually planned by the ASLD, and
this plan has been incorporated into
Pinal County’s Comprehensive Plan
(https://www.superstition-vistas.org).
These ASLD lands where development
may occur are included in the
percentage of lands subject to existing or
potential future development within the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake’s range.
However, many of these ASLD lands,
especially in the western portion of the
subspecies’ range, are so remote that we
do not reasonably anticipate them being
developed in the foreseeable future.
Regardless, we included the potential
development of these lands in our
analysis of existing and potential future
development. Other areas like
Superstition Vistas are highly likely to
be developed in the coming years. In
most cases, community master plans
indicate that these developments may
incorporate open space areas containing
habitat for the snake. These open space
areas are anticipated to maintain some
degree of suitable habitat for the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake, although we do not
know to what extent these areas would
contribute to the snake’s viability.
Overall, at least in the near future, these
ASLD lands are expected to continue to
contribute to the resiliency,
redundancy, and representation of the
snake throughout its range. However, in
the long term, some of these ASLD lands
may be developed and contribute to
habitat loss, and were considered in the
SSA Report as potential lost habitat to
the subspecies.
Similar to urban development, solar
energy development and associated
transmission corridors may contribute
to habitat loss affecting the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake. All of these
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
activities may impact the subspecies
through removal and potential
contamination of remaining habitat and
increased potential for road kill.
Currently, there is one approved solar
facility and two applications for new
solar facilities that have been received
by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) within the range of the snake.
The approved facility does not have a
power purchase agreement; therefore,
we are uncertain if or when it will
actually be constructed. We also are
uncertain whether the facilities
associated with the two applications
will be approved or built. If all three of
the solar facilities are constructed, the
resulting habitat lost would include
approximately 7,070 ha (17,472 ac).
This comprises less than one percent of
the land within suitable habitat of the
current estimated range of the snake. If
all three of these facilities are
constructed, there would likely be some
level of diminished resiliency
associated with local populations of
snakes. However, the overall
redundancy and representation of
populations is expected to remain at
current levels due to the size of the
subspecies’ range and the fact that these
solar facilities are anticipated to be
limited in occurrence, only removing a
small fraction of available habitat
compared to the total habitat available
to snakes throughout their range.
Roadways and transportation
corridors raise similar concerns for the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake. In most
instances, new roads would be
associated with urban development or
solar facilities. Roadways may remove
suitable habitat for the snake and could
result in fatality of individuals.
However, data in our files indicate that
populations of Tucson shovel-nosed
snakes are currently persisting along
roads in areas of high traffic use.
Although roads have been documented
to be detrimental to snakes, particularly
individuals, long-term studies show that
they do not have as significant an effect
on the resiliency or redundancy of
populations as previously believed. Offhighway vehicle (OHV) use could also
have similar affects to Tucson shovelnosed snakes through habitat
degradation when these vehicles create
new trails. However, OHV use is most
likely to occur on ASLD or private lands
near larger urban developments,
because OHV use is restricted on public
lands throughout the subspecies’ range.
Thus, the limited use of OHVs on most
BLM lands, which encompasses a large
portion of lands with the subspecies’
current estimated range, is not expected
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules
to reduce resiliency and redundancy of
the subspecies throughout its range.
Although there are some potential
impacts to the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake resulting from urban
development, solar development, and
roads associated with both forms of
development, the estimated range of the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake includes
large tracts of lands managed by the
BLM that contain suitable habitat for the
snake. Collectively, these specially
managed areas include approximately
770,163 ha (1,903,115 ac), which
represents approximately 42 percent of
the 1,835,591 ha (4,535,845 ac) of the
suitable habitat within the current
estimated range of the Tucson shovelnosed snake. These lands include
wilderness areas, Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACECs),
national monuments, and a wilderness
study area. In addition to these
designated areas, there are several other
tracts of BLM land that are managed for
wilderness characters and wildlife
habitat within the range of the
subspecies. Although none of these
lands are specifically managed for the
benefit of the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake, they are managed to maintain
their natural state. As discussed
previously, the subspecies is a habitat
generalist, and we assume that general
habitat management of these specially
managed BLM lands will contribute to
maintenance of suitable habitat for the
subspecies. Further, we expect that
these specially managed lands will be
protected from potential impacts in the
foreseeable future and, thus, are likely
to continue to provide suitable habitat
for the Tucson shovel-nosed snake into
the future. BLM lands outside of these
special management areas are still
subject to multiple-use management,
primarily livestock grazing and
recreational use, including OHV use.
However, we have no evidence that the
effects of livestock grazing are a threat
to Tucson shovel-nosed snakes, and
OHV use is restricted to existing routes
under all BLM Land and Resource
Management Plans. Therefore, BLM
lands that allow for livestock grazing
and limited OHV use will continue to
provide suitable habitat for the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake.
Although most of the BLM land
within the subspecies’ range occurs in
the eastern portion of the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake’s range, the western
portion of the snake’s range also
includes large tracts of land managed by
the ASLD. This land can be sold at any
time for the benefit of the State Trust
Land beneficiaries, but these lands in
the western portion of the snake’s range
are remote, and many are currently used
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
for livestock grazing. Therefore, we do
not expect them to be sold in the
foreseeable future and anticipate that
they will remain as suitable habitat for
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. ASLD
lands in the eastern portion of the range
of the snake have high potential for
development; however, as discussed
above, they represent only a limited
portion of the suitable habitat available
throughout the range of the snake.
Because these ASLD lands currently
appear to support suitable Sonoran
Desertscrub habitat for the Tucson
shovel-nosed snakes and the subspecies
is a habitat generalist, we assume that
large tracts of specially managed BLM
land and remote ASLD land provide
habitat for the snake. In addition, we
have location data that indicate the
snake is relatively evenly distributed
throughout its range, including on these
protected lands (see ‘‘Abundance’’
section of the SSA Report).
In summary, we evaluated a variety of
different factors that could contribute to
habitat loss for the subspecies. Urban
development has the highest potential
to occur within the subspecies’ range
and is likely to cause some level of
habitat loss affecting the Tucson shovelnosed snake. Urban development is
most likely to occur in the eastern and
north-central portion of the snake’s
range along the Interstate 10 corridor
between Phoenix and Tucson and other
outlying areas. If this predicted urban
development occurs at the high-end
estimates we discuss in the SSA Report,
the total habitat lost is estimated to be
approximately 33 percent of the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake’s suitable habitat.
Conversely, protected lands will likely
continue to provide suitable habitat for
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. Large
areas of BLM land, including vast areas
of specially managed lands, containing
suitable habitat occur throughout the
range of the subspecies. These specially
managed BLM lands include
approximately 42 percent of the suitable
habitat throughout the snake’s current
estimated range. All of these public
lands containing habitat for the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake are expected to be
managed as such in perpetuity, ensuring
continued resiliency, redundancy, and
representation of snake populations
throughout its range. Overall, we expect
some level of habitat loss to result from
urban development, solar energy
development, and roads associated with
both forms of development. However,
these impacts do not currently have, nor
are they likely to have in the future, a
significant species-level effect because
much of the development has already
occurred, and the spatial and temporal
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56735
effect of development into the
foreseeable future will be limited and is
offset by the presence of protected
lands. Our new understanding of the
size of the subspecies’ range, the snake’s
known distribution throughout its
range, and the lack of pervasive threats
throughout its range indicate the
existence of the necessary resources for
the subspecies’ persistence now and in
the long term, even if development
occurs as described above. In
conclusion, due to the distribution and
extent of suitable habitat within the
subspecies’ current estimated range, the
subspecies exhibits resiliency,
redundancy, and representation such
that it does not meet the definition of an
endangered or a threatened species
under the Act.
Finding
Standard for Review
Section 4 of the Act, and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR part
424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Under section 4(b)(1)(a) of
the Act, the Secretary is to make
endangered or threatened species
determinations required by the section
4(a)(1) solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available
to her after conducting a review of the
status of the species and after taking
into account conservation efforts by
States or foreign nations. The standards
for determining whether a species is an
endangered or threatened species are
provided in section 3 of the Act. An
endangered species is any species that
is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.’’
A threatened species is any species that
is ‘‘likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.’’ Per section 4(a)(1) of the Act,
in reviewing the status of the species to
determine if it meets the definition of
‘‘an endangered species’’ or of a
‘‘threatened species,’’ we determine
whether any species is an endangered or
threatened species because of any of the
following five factors: (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; and (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Until recently, the Service has
presented its evaluation of information
under the five listing factors in an
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
56736
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
outline format, discussing all of the
information relevant to any given factor
and providing a factor-specific
conclusion before moving to the next
factor. However, the Act does not
require findings under each of the
factors, only an overall determination as
to status (e.g., endangered species,
threatened species, not warranted).
Ongoing efforts to improve the
efficiency and efficacy of the Service’s
implementation of the Act have led us
to present this information in a different
format that we believe leads to greater
clarity in our understanding of the
science, its uncertainties, and the
application of our statutory framework
to that science. Therefore, while the
presentation of information in this rule
differs from past practice, it differs in
format only. We have evaluated the
same body of information we would
have evaluated under the five listing
factors outline format, we are applying
the same information standard, and we
are applying the same statutory
framework in reaching our conclusions.
Endangered or Threatened Species
Throughout Its Range
Subsequent to our 2010 12-month
finding, substantial new information has
become available related to the genetics,
range, and distribution of the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake. On the basis of our
biological review documented in the
SSA Report, we have found merit in the
recent genetic work presented in Wood
et al. (2014, entire) and have revised our
understanding of the range of the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake based on
this genetic information. As a result, the
range of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake
is considerably larger than the range we
considered in our 2010 12-month
finding. Therefore, in the associated
SSA Report, we evaluated the various
past, current, and future stressors
known to negatively affect the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake, but we expanded
our analysis to include the entirety of
the redefined range of the subspecies.
The primary past, current, and
ongoing stressor to the Tucson shovelnosed snake is habitat loss resulting
from existing and potential future urban
development. Secondary sources of
habitat loss likely to affect the
subspecies on a smaller-scale include
solar energy development, road
construction and maintenance,
conversion of lands to agricultural use,
wildfires, climate change, and drought.
All of these stressors related to habitat
loss are likely the most significant to the
subspecies because they have the
potential to remove Sonoran
Desertscrub habitat that is necessary for
individuals to complete their life history
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
and for populations to maintain
resiliency supported by sufficient intact
tracts of habitat. Our analysis
acknowledges that stressors resulting in
habitat loss, including urban
development, will continue to occur in
portions of the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake’s range; however, we evaluated
the scope and effect of these stressors
throughout the subspecies’ redefined
range, and conclude that these stressors
are limited to a small portion of the
subspecies’ range. Furthermore, a
meaningful portion of the range of the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake is, and will
be, protected for the foreseeable future
under existing specific management by
the BLM that is focused on maintaining
intact Sonoran Desertscrub habitat. As a
result, we expect stressors resulting in
habitat loss may diminish the resiliency
of local snake populations in portions of
the subspecies’ range but will not
reduce the subspecies’ resiliency,
redundancy, and representation
throughout its range. We conclude that
adequate suitable habitat for the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake will be available for
the foreseeable future.
Other potential stressors that we
evaluated include overutilization for
commercial and scientific purposes,
disease, and predation. Unregulated
take of Tucson shovel-nosed snakes is
likely infrequent because specimens can
be difficult to locate in the wild and are
similar in appearance to venomous coral
snakes, causing humans to be less likely
to capture them. Disease has not been
documented in Tucson shovel-nosed
snakes, and, while predation by a
variety of carnivores is known to occur,
there is no information suggesting that
predation occurs at higher levels than
expected in a normally functioning
ecosystem. Thus, these stressors are not
reducing the subspecies’ resiliency,
redundancy, or representation and,
therefore, are not reducing its viability.
Tucson shovel-nosed snakes are
found throughout the entirety of their
redefined range, and it does not appear
that the various stressors described
above are occurring at such a magnitude
that they are diminishing the
subspecies’ resiliency, redundancy, and
representation throughout its range.
Furthermore, the genetic work by Wood
et al. (2014, entire) indicate that there is
substantial genetic variability within the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake, and that
there appears to be ongoing exchange of
genetic material within Tucson shovelnosed snake populations, as well as
among the subspecies of the western
shovel-nosed snake. We are not aware of
any other potential stressors or threats
that may impact the subspecies or its
habitat individually or in combination,
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
as further discussed in the SSA Report.
Because the Tucson shovel-nosed snake
is a habitat generalist and due to the
distribution and extent of suitable
habitat within the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake’s estimated range, the subspecies
exhibits resiliency, redundancy, and
representation such that it does not
meet the definition of an endangered or
threatened species. Therefore, we find
that listing the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake as an endangered or a threatened
species throughout its range is not
warranted.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
Because we find that the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake does not warrant
listing as endangered or threatened
throughout its range, we next consider
whether there is an alternative
characterization of the subspecies that
may warrant listing under the Act as
defined by policy or regulation. The Act
provides for the consideration of listing
of distinct vertebrate population
segments (DPSs) as defined within
section 3 of the Act. Under the Service’s
Policy Regarding the Recognition of
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
under the Endangered Species Act (DPS
Policy; 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996),
three elements are considered in the
decision concerning the establishment
and classification of a possible DPS.
These are applied similarly for addition
to or removal from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
These elements include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in
relation to the remainder of the species
to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population
segment to the species to which it
belongs; and
(3) The population segment’s
conservation status in relation to the
Act’s standards for listing, delisting, or
reclassification (i.e., is the population
segment endangered or threatened).
Discreteness
Under the DPS Policy, a population
segment of a vertebrate taxon may be
considered discrete if it satisfies either
one of these conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors.
Quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity may
provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international
governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation
status, or regulatory mechanisms exist
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
With regard to the Tucson shovelnosed snake, our evaluation of the status
of this subspecies, as outlined in the
SSA Report, indicates that the snake
does not meet the criteria for
discreteness required by our DPS policy.
The best available scientific information
indicates that there are no physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors within the range of the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake that point to any
segment of the population being
discrete. Genetic work shows genetic
diversity and evidence of genetic
exchange across the range of the snake,
indicating that populations within the
range are interacting and are not
discrete (Wood et al. 2008, entire; Wood
et al. 2014, entire). Furthermore, the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake is not
delimited by international governmental
boundaries within which differences in
control of exploitation, management of
habitat, conservation status, or
regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D)
of the Act. Because there are no discrete
population segments within the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake, it is unnecessary
for us to complete any further analysis
under the DPS policy.
Significant Portion of the Range
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is an endangered or a
threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act
defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any
species which is ‘‘in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened
species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely
to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.’’ The
term ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘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.’’ We published a final policy
interpreting the phrase ‘‘significant
portion of its range’’ (SPR) (79 FR
37578, July 1, 2014). The final policy
states that (1) if a species is found to be
an endangered or a threatened species
throughout a significant portion of its
range, the entire species is listed as an
endangered or a threatened species,
respectively, and the Act’s protections
apply to all individuals of the species
wherever found; (2) a portion of the
range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if the
species is not currently an endangered
or a threatened species throughout all of
its range, but the portion’s contribution
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
to the viability of the species is so
important that, without the members in
that portion, the species would be in
danger of extinction, or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future, throughout
all of its range; (3) the range of a species
is considered to be the general
geographical area within which that
species can be found at the time the
Service or the National Marine Fisheries
Service makes any particular status
determination; and (4) if a vertebrate
species is an endangered or a threatened
species throughout an SPR, and the
population in that significant portion is
a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather
than the entire taxonomic species or
subspecies.
The SPR policy is applied to all status
determinations, including analyses for
the purposes of making listing,
delisting, and reclassification
determinations. The procedure for
analyzing whether any portion is an
SPR is similar, regardless of the type of
status determination we are making.
Where we have found that the species
is neither an endangered nor a
threatened species throughout all of its
range, we next determine whether the
species is an endangered or a threatened
species throughout a significant portion
of its range. If it is, we list the species
as an endangered or a threatened
species, respectively; if it is not, we
conclude that listing the species is not
warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis,
we first identify any portions of the
species’ range that warrant further
consideration. The range of a species
can theoretically be divided into
portions in an infinite number of ways.
However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that are
not reasonably likely to be significant
and either an endangered or a
threatened species. To identify only
those portions that warrant further
consideration, we determine whether
there is substantial information
indicating that (1) the portions may be
significant and (2) the species may be in
danger of extinction in those portions or
likely to become so within the
foreseeable future. Answering these
questions in the affirmative is not a
determination that the species is an
endangered or a threatened species
throughout a significant portion of its
range—rather, it is a step in determining
whether a more detailed analysis of the
issue is required. A key part of this
analysis is whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are
affecting it uniformly throughout its
range, no portion is likely to warrant
further consideration. Moreover, if any
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56737
concentration of threats applies only to
portions of the range that clearly do not
meet the biologically based definition of
‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that
portion clearly would not be expected to
increase the vulnerability to extinction
of the entire species), those portions
will not warrant further consideration.
If we identify any portions that may
be both (1) significant and (2)
endangered or threatened, we engage in
a more detailed analysis to determine
whether these standards are indeed met.
The identification of an SPR does not
create a presumption, prejudgment, or
other determination as to whether the
species in that identified SPR is an
endangered or a threatened species. We
must go through a separate analysis to
determine whether the species is an
endangered or a threatened species in
the SPR. To determine whether a
species is an endangered or a threatened
species throughout an SPR, we will use
the same standards and methodology
that we use to determine if a species is
an endangered or a threatened species
throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the
species, its range, and the threats it
faces, it may be more efficient to address
the ‘‘significant’’ question first, or the
status question first. Thus, if we
determine that a portion of the range is
not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to
determine whether the species is an
endangered or a threatened species
there; if we determine that the species
is not an endangered or a threatened
species in a portion of its range, we do
not need to determine if that portion is
‘‘significant.’’
We considered whether there are any
significant portions of the range where
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake is in
danger of extinction or is likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable
future by reviewing the SSA Report
with respect to the geographic
concentration of threats, and the
significance of portions of the range to
the conservation of the subspecies.
However, there were no portions of the
subspecies’ range that we considered
biologically ‘‘significant’’ because the
habitat conditions and distribution of
the snake were generally similar across
the entire subspecies’ range and there is
relatively high genetic diversity across
the entire range. Therefore, we next
chose to identify any portions of the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake’s range
where the subspecies may be in danger
of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future. We
concluded that the best available
information indicates that the impacts
identified in the SSA Report do not
occur uniformly throughout the range of
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
56738
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. The
most significant impact to the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake is urban
development and associated activities.
The SSA Report describes that the
majority of urban development has
occurred and will likely continue to
occur within the north-central and
eastern portions of the Tucson shovelnosed snake’s range, primarily along the
Interstate 10 corridor. Because urban
development represents a permanent
loss of Tucson shovel-nosed snake
habitat, it is within these areas that the
extent of the impact could be such that
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake in this
portion of the range may be in danger
of extinction or is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future.
Having identified this portion of the
range as potentially having endangered
or threatened status, we must next
determine if this portion of the range is
significant. As described above, we
would consider such a portion of the
range significant if, should that portion
of the range be theoretically extirpated,
the species in the remaining portion of
the range would be in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable
future (in other words, endangered or
threatened). The best available
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Sep 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
information suggests that, should the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake be
extirpated from areas of urban
development in the north-central and
eastern portions of its range, the
remainder of its range would retain
adequate resiliency, redundancy, and
representation. There are no significant
stressors to the remainder of the range
of the subspecies due, in large part, to
the large areas of habitat that would
remain protected into the foreseeable
future. Therefore, we find that the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake is not in
danger of extinction now, or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future, in
a significant portion of its range.
Based on the information presented in
the SSA Report for the Tucson shovelnosed snake, and on the discussion
above, we find that the best available
scientific and commercial information
does not indicate that the threats to the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake rise to the
level of significance such that this
subspecies is in danger of extinction
now or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. As a
result, we have determined that this
subspecies does not meet the definition
of an endangered or threatened species
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
under the Act and are subsequently
removing this subspecies from our
candidate list.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available in the SSA Report (Service
2014, pp. 69–74), available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket Number FWS–R2–ES–2014–
0035, 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: September 9, 2014.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–22331 Filed 9–22–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56730-56738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22331]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0035: 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake 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 Tucson shovel-nosed snake
(Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as an endangered or threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
After a review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing the Tucson shovel-nosed snake as an
endangered or threatened species is not warranted, and, therefore, we
are
[[Page 56731]]
removing this subspecies from our candidate list.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on September 23,
2014.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2014-0035. 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 subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Previous Federal Actions
We received a petition, dated December 15, 2004, from the Center
for Biological Diversity requesting that we list the Tucson shovel-
nosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as an endangered or
threatened species throughout its range and designate critical habitat
within its range in the United States. The petition, which was clearly
identified as such, contained detailed information on the natural
history, biology, current status, and distribution of the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake. It also contained information on what the
petitioner reported as potential threats to the subspecies from urban
development, agricultural practices, collecting, inadequacy of existing
regulations, drought, and climate change. In response to the
petitioner's requests, we sent a letter to the petitioner, dated
September 7, 2005, explaining that, due to funding constraints in
fiscal year 2005, we would not be able to address the petition in a
timely manner. On February 28, 2006, the petitioner filed a 60-day
notice of intent to sue the Department of the Interior for failure to
issue 90-day and 12-month findings, and a proposed listing rule, as
appropriate, in response to the petition as required by 16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(3)(A) and (B). In response to the notice of intent to sue, we
announced our intention to submit a 90-day finding to the Federal
Register as expeditiously as possible.
On July 29, 2008, we published in the Federal Register (73 FR
43905) our 90-day finding that the petition presented substantial
scientific information indicating that listing the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake may be warranted. On March 31, 2010 (75 FR 16050), we published a
12-month finding on the December 15, 2004, petition to list the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake as an endangered or threatened species. In the 12-
month finding, we found that listing the Tucson shovel-nosed snake as
an endangered or threatened species was warranted but precluded by
higher priority actions. Upon publication of the 12-month finding, we
added the Tucson shovel-nosed snake to the candidate list. Candidate
species are those fish, wildlife, and plants for which we have on file
sufficient information on biological status and threats to propose them
for listing, but for which development of a proposed listing regulation
is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. The Tucson
shovel-nosed snake remained a candidate through all of our subsequent
annual candidate notices of review (75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76
FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; and 78 FR
70104, November 22, 2013).
On September 9, 2011, the Service entered into a settlement
agreement regarding species on the candidate list in multi-district
litigation (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No.
10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)), which we
refer to as the ``MDL settlement agreement. '' Per the MDL settlement
agreement, the Service is required to submit a proposed rule or a not
warranted 12-month finding to the Federal Register for the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake in Fiscal Year 2014, which ends September 30, 2014.
This 12-month finding fulfills that requirement of the MDL settlement
agreement.
Status Assessment for the Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake
Introduction
We completed a Species Status Assessment Report for the Tucson
Shovel-Nosed Snake (SSA Report; Service 2014, entire), which is
available online at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number FWS-
R2-ES-2014-0035). The SSA Report provides a thorough assessment of
Tucson shovel-nosed snake's biology and natural history, and assesses
demographic risks, threats, and limiting factors in the context of
determining viability and risk of extinction for the subspecies. In the
SSA Report, we compile biological data and a description of past,
present, and likely future threats (causes and effects) facing the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake. Because data in these areas of science are
limited, some uncertainties are associated with this assessment. Where
we have substantial uncertainty, we have attempted to make our
necessary assumptions explicit in the SSA Report. We base our
assumptions in these areas on the best available scientific and
commercial data. Importantly, the SSA Report does not represent a
decision by the Service on whether this subspecies warrants listing as
an endangered or threatened species under the Act. The SSA Report does,
however, provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory
decision (see Summary of Biological Status and Threats), which involves
the application of standards within the Act and its implementing
regulations and Service policies (see Finding).
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
The SSA Report documents the results of the comprehensive
biological status review for the Tucson shovel-nosed snake and provides
a thorough
[[Page 56732]]
account of the subspecies' overall viability and, conversely,
extinction risk (Service 2014, entire). The SSA Report contains the
data on which this finding is based. The following is a summary of the
results and conclusions from the SSA Report.
The Tucson shovel-nosed snake is a small, non-venomous snake (250-
425 millimeters (mm) (9.84-16.73 inches (in)) total length) in the
family Colubridae, with a shovel-shaped snout, an inset lower jaw, and
coloring that mimics coral snakes (Micrurus spp.) (Mahrdt et al. 2001,
p. 731.1). The Tucson shovel-nosed snake is a subspecies of the western
shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis). The western shovel-nosed
snake consists of four subspecies: Colorado Desert shovel-nosed snake
(C. o. annulata), Mohave shovel-nosed snake (C. o. occipitalis), Nevada
shovel-nosed snake (C. o. talpina), and Tucson shovel-nosed snake. The
range of the western shovel-nosed snake extends from southern Nevada
and southern California, across southwestern Arizona, and into Mexico.
Snakes of the family Colubridae, which includes all shovel-nosed
snakes, tend to be abundant in their respective habitats, widely
distributed, and chiefly non-venomous; the family includes the
kingsnakes, gartersnakes, and watersnakes. The Tucson shovel-nosed
snake has been recognized as a subspecies of the western shovel-nosed
snake since 1941. However, the original subspecies description was
based on one color pattern variation compared to the other subspecies.
More recent genetic studies, explained in detail below, have clarified
that the identification of the subspecies based on color patterning is
inaccurate and leads to under-representation of the actual extent of
the subspecies' population. The geographical western extent of snakes
with this distinguishing color pattern variation was never documented;
therefore, the exact range of the subspecies was never described and
was thought to be substantially smaller than our current understanding
of the range as described below.
At the time of the 2008 90-day and 2010 12-month findings, we
accepted the taxonomic status and distribution of the subspecies as
described by Mahrdt et al. (2001, entire). The range supported by
Mahrdt et al. (2001, entire) encompassed approximately 1,149,367
hectares (ha) (2,840,147 acres (ac)) and extended from Phoenix,
Arizona, to Tucson, Arizona. A large intergrade zone was thought to
exist where the Tucson shovel-nosed snake's and Colorado Desert shovel-
nosed snake's ranges overlapped; an intergrade zone is defined as an
area of overlap between the ranges of two subspecies where individuals
may possess intermediate characters (attributes or features that
distinguish a subspecies, such as coloration) or traits of both
subspecies. Snakes within the intergrade zone between Tucson shovel-
nosed snake and Colorado Desert shovel-nosed snake possessed color
patterns characteristic (or intermediate) of both subspecies. Following
our 90-day finding (July 29, 2008; 73 FR 43905), genetic studies
involving mitochondrial DNA were conducted to help inform the taxonomy
and genetic structure of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake and the
intergrade zone. The data from this genetic study initially suggested
that the Tucson shovel-nosed snake was not a valid subspecies.
Therefore, we requested peer review and input in September 2008 on the
issue of taxonomic classification and distribution of the snake. Four
out of six peer reviewers believed that, based on genetic work by Wood
et al. (2008, entire), the subspecies did not warrant taxonomic
recognition; however, the peer reviewers also recognized that more
conclusive genetic studies, including microsatellite data, were needed.
These genetic studies were not complete until after our 2010 12-
month finding. Our 2010 12-month finding for the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake (March 31, 2010; 75 FR 16050) acknowledged the uncertainty of the
taxonomy of the snake, but recognized the best available scientific
information continued to recognize the Tucson shovel-nosed snake as a
subspecies. In the 2010 12-month finding, we continued to recognize the
Mahrdt et al. (2001) representation of the range (which was limited to
1,149,367 ha (2,840,147 ac)) with a large intergrade zone with the
Colorado Desert shovel-nosed snake subspecies) and description as the
best available science at that time. The 2010 12-month finding
concluded that listing of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake was warranted
but precluded by higher priority listing actions.
Since the publication of our 2010 12-month finding (March 31, 2010;
75 FR 16050), additional genetic work has been conducted for the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake. This new genetic work supports that the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake is a valid subspecies and that the subspecies
occupies a much larger range than previously believed. A U.S.
Geological Survey study used both mitochondrial DNA and 11
microsatellite loci to assess whether patterns of population genetic
structure follow the spatial structuring of phenotypic variation
(variation in observable characteristics such as shape, color pattern,
or even behavior) that originally led to the subspecies description and
included samples from all subspecies of the western shovel-nosed snake
throughout its range. The results and data from this study were made
available to us prior to development of this SSA Report.
We now understand that the western boundary of the estimated range
of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake is almost 322 kilometers (km) (200
miles (mi)) west of the range described by Mahrdt et al. (2001) and
used by the Service to represent the range of the snake in our 2010 12-
month finding (see Figure 3 of the SSA Report). The estimated range
supported in the U.S. Geological Survey study includes approximately
2,000,655 ha (4,943,728 ac) more than the range we identified in our
2010 12-month finding; this represents a 274 percent increase in our
understanding of the estimated range of the subspecies. We recognize
that there is considerable color pattern variation throughout the range
of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake; however, the genetic data indicate
that, despite the color pattern expressed, snakes previously thought to
be a different subspecies within this range are genetically Tucson
shovel-nosed snakes. Based on this new information, the current
estimated range of the snake encompasses 3,150,022 ha (7,783,875 ac) of
land.
The current estimated range of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake
includes Pinal, Maricopa, Yavapai, Yuma, Pima, and La Paz Counties in
central and western Arizona. Although little is known about the
specific habitat requirements of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake within
its current estimated range, the subspecies is generally found within
the Arizona Upland and Lower Colorado River Valley subdivisions
(regions with diverse and distinctive vegetation) of the Sonoran
Desertscrub biotic community, in areas containing: (1) Soils comprised
of soft, sandy loams, with sparse gravel; and (2) sufficient prey items
(insects and other arthropods). Of the total estimated range, 1,835,591
ha (4,535,845 ac) (approximately 58 percent) contain the appropriate
Sonoran Desertscrub habitat for the snake (see Figure 1 of the SSA
Report).
In conducting our status assessment, we first considered what the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake needs to ensure viability. We generally
define viability as the ability of the species to persist over the long
term and, conversely, to avoid extinction. We then evaluated whether or
not the vital resources needed for the snake's persistence
[[Page 56733]]
currently exist and the repercussions to the subspecies when those
resources are missing, diminished, or inaccessible. We next consider
the factors that may interfere with the snake's needs, including
historical, current, and future factors. Finally, considering the
information reviewed, we evaluated the current status and future
viability of the subspecies in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation.
Resiliency is having sufficiently large populations for the
subspecies to withstand stochastic events; in the case of the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake, resiliency is likely best measured by the extent of
what the best available information describes as suitable habitat:
intact Sonoran Desertscrub vegetation that contains soft, sandy loam
soils, and supports abundant prey. Although we do not have specific
metrics on population health or abundance for the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake, we assume that distribution of suitable habitat is an
appropriate surrogate to indicate resiliency for this subspecies
because snakes are distributed throughout the entirety of their range
and we assume that these snakes generally occupy areas where suitable
habitat exists. Redundancy is having a sufficient number of populations
for the subspecies to withstand catastrophic events within part of its
range and can be measured through the duplication and distribution of
resilient populations across its range. Representation is having the
breadth of genetic makeup of the subspecies to adapt to changing
environmental conditions and can be measured by the genetic diversity
within and among populations, and the ecological diversity of
populations across the subspecies' range. In the case of the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake, we evaluated representation based on the extent of
the current estimated geographical range and the variability of habitat
characteristics within this range as indicators of genetic and
ecological diversity.
For the Tucson shovel-nosed snake to be considered viable,
individual snakes need the specific vital resources for survival and
completion of their life cycles. Although there is a general lack of
information regarding what the necessary vital resources are for the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake to complete its life cycle, one study
indicated that this snake selected habitat that included scattered sand
hummocks (low mounds or ridges), crowned with mesquite or other desert
shrubs, which can provide refuges for shovel-nosed snakes. The Tucson
shovel-nosed snake is also found in creosote-mesquite floodplain
environments, as well as sandy dunes, desert washes and valleys, and
bajadas, most frequently in sparsely vegetated, sandy to gravelly
habitats, and is less abundant in rocky terrain. Specifically, snakes
are found within the Arizona Upland and Lower Colorado River Valley
subdivisions of the Sonoran Desertscrub biotic community, in areas
containing: (1) Soils comprised of soft, sandy loams, with sparse
gravel; and (2) sufficient prey items (insects and other arthropods).
We assume that the presence of the appropriate habitat types (as
described above) throughout the subspecies' range provides sufficient
area and suitable habitat to support the subspecies. This is because
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake appears to be a habitat generalist
occurring within the relatively broad biotic community described above.
From an ecological perspective, the term habitat generalist describes a
species that can tolerate a relatively wide range of environmental
conditions, whereas habitat specialists can only tolerate a relatively
narrow range of environmental conditions. Tucson shovel-nosed snakes
are often found in open areas with sparse vegetation, and there are no
specific habitat requirements for the percent vegetative cover
preferred by this species. Rather, the subspecies' general requirements
include proper soil and vegetation types, which provide both cover from
predators and habitat for prey items. Additionally, connectivity
between populations is essential to maintain diversity and the ability
to find mates. Because generalists can tolerate a wider range of
environmental conditions, they can generally adapt to minor, localized
environmental changes within their broader habitat. Thus, the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake is likely most sensitive to habitat changes that
entirely remove suitable habitat from the subspecies' range rather than
changes that result only in habitat modification. For these reasons, we
focused our analysis in the SSA Report on landscape-scale stressors
that could result in habitat loss.
Within the redefined range of the subspecies, we do not have
systematic survey data for habitat or population abundance estimates,
and there are no minimum viable population estimates for the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake. Throughout the areas within the subspecies' range
that have had systematic surveys, populations of snakes appear to be
stable (available information indicates that the species status neither
improved nor declined since the last reporting period; i.e., population
numbers remained constant) and persisting according to the survey data
and analyses (Rosen 2003, entire; Rosen 2004; all and 2008b, entire;
Arizona Game and Fish Department 2008, p. 2; Mixan and Lowery 2008,
entire; Grandmaison and Abbate 2011, entire; Jones et al. 2011, p. 65;
Grandmaison et al. 2012, entire; Leavitt et al. 2013a, entire). While
we do not have specific data for densities of Tucson shovel-nosed
snakes throughout their range, collection data indicate that the
subspecies is found throughout the entirety of its estimated range (see
Figure 6 in the SSA Report). We expect areas of unsurveyed, suitable
habitat to support similar populations to those areas that have been
systematically surveyed because density of a species tends to be
greatest near the center of its range and gradually declines toward the
boundaries (Brown 1984, p. 258) and collection data generally tends to
be biased towards areas that are more easily accessed by surveyors,
such as along paved roads. In this case, based on the proximity of
snakes collected to adjacent areas of unsurveyed, suitable snake
habitat, including more inaccessible areas of suitable habitat, we
assume that the Tucson shovel-nosed snake occupies these unsurveyed
areas where suitable habitat exists. This conclusion is consistent with
population data for Tucson shovel-nosed snakes in similar habitats
throughout its range. Each collection location in Figure 6 of the SSA
Report represents multiple individuals collected at each site. For
example, although there are three locality points in La Paz County in
the western portion of the range, we have data in our files for 11
Tucson shovel-nosed snakes collected at those three points. Many times,
specimens are collected in close proximity to each other and are
represented by a single point on the map. Therefore, while Figure 6 of
the SSA Report represents what we know regarding the distribution of
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake, it underestimates the actual number of
snakes collected or sampled at these locations. Overall, we expect that
the subspecies' populations throughout the snake's range currently have
fairly similar population abundances to the areas that have been
surveyed (please refer to Chapter 4 ``Species Current Conditions'' of
the SSA Report).
Potential threats to the viability of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake
occur in the form of urban development, solar facilities, and roads
associated with both urban development and solar facilities. These
various factors result in habitat loss, thereby contributing to the
[[Page 56734]]
potential decline or extirpation of local populations of Tucson shovel-
nosed snakes. Because the snake is a habitat generalist (as described
above), we assume that the presence of the appropriate habitat types
will contribute to the viability of the subspecies and that the removal
of these habitat types due to development will decrease the subspecies'
viability. Thus, the potential threats we analyzed in the SSA Report
focus on the factors that may result in habitat loss. We evaluated
these factors in the near term (over about the next 10 years) and into
the future (over the next 11 to 50 years). Based on our analysis of the
subspecies and the factors affecting it in the future, we believe that
50 years is the longest length of time that we can reliably predict the
future habitat conditions of the subspecies' range. This is because the
potential threats to the subspecies focus on loss of suitable habitat,
and our projections of management of lands upon which the subspecies
relies is limited to approximately 50 years.
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake occupies a range of 3,150,022 ha (7,783,875
ac), with 1,835,591 ha (4,535,845 ac) of the current estimated range
being suitable habitat, and habitat development will impact only a
small percentage of that range. Currently, 608,433 ha (1,503,472 ac) of
land within the estimated range of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake falls
within 31 municipal boundaries; the majority of the areas within these
municipal boundaries have either already been developed or are planned
for some level of development. Large areas of existing urban
development and planned development that overlap with the subspecies'
habitat primarily occur in the eastern and north-central portion of its
range along the Interstate 10 corridor between Tucson and Phoenix;
however, we do not have information to indicate when the planned
communities will be developed or how much Tucson shovel-nosed snake
habitat would be lost as a result. Thus, our analysis includes the
total area of all municipalities, and we assume that all areas would be
developed within each municipality. We did not differentiate between
existing and potential future development; rather, we assumed all
currently or reasonably potentially developed municipal lands would be
lost to the subspecies. These areas of existing or potential future
development represent approximately 19 percent of the 3,150,022 ha
(7,783,875 ac) of the current estimated range of the Tucson shovel-
nosed snake. These area of existing or potential future development are
33 percent of the 1,835,591 ha (4,535,845 ac) of Tucson shovel-nosed
snake suitable habitat. We anticipate, but did not quantify or rely on,
that the area that would be developed would be less than the total area
described above, resulting in a reduced contribution to potential
habitat loss than the maximum projected if all of this development
occurs.
Lands managed by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD)
containing habitat for the Tucson shovel-nosed snake are prevalent
throughout much of its range (see Figure 2 of the SSA Report), and
these ASLD lands have the potential to be sold for development,
especially to facilitate growth around Phoenix and in western Pinal
County. For example, Superstition Vistas, a large master planned
community of approximately 275 square miles (712 square kilometers)
located between Florence and Apache Junction, has been conceptually
planned by the ASLD, and this plan has been incorporated into Pinal
County's Comprehensive Plan (https://www.superstition-vistas.org). These
ASLD lands where development may occur are included in the percentage
of lands subject to existing or potential future development within the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake's range. However, many of these ASLD lands,
especially in the western portion of the subspecies' range, are so
remote that we do not reasonably anticipate them being developed in the
foreseeable future. Regardless, we included the potential development
of these lands in our analysis of existing and potential future
development. Other areas like Superstition Vistas are highly likely to
be developed in the coming years. In most cases, community master plans
indicate that these developments may incorporate open space areas
containing habitat for the snake. These open space areas are
anticipated to maintain some degree of suitable habitat for the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake, although we do not know to what extent these areas
would contribute to the snake's viability. Overall, at least in the
near future, these ASLD lands are expected to continue to contribute to
the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the snake throughout
its range. However, in the long term, some of these ASLD lands may be
developed and contribute to habitat loss, and were considered in the
SSA Report as potential lost habitat to the subspecies.
Similar to urban development, solar energy development and
associated transmission corridors may contribute to habitat loss
affecting the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. All of these activities may
impact the subspecies through removal and potential contamination of
remaining habitat and increased potential for road kill. Currently,
there is one approved solar facility and two applications for new solar
facilities that have been received by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) within the range of the snake. The approved facility does not
have a power purchase agreement; therefore, we are uncertain if or when
it will actually be constructed. We also are uncertain whether the
facilities associated with the two applications will be approved or
built. If all three of the solar facilities are constructed, the
resulting habitat lost would include approximately 7,070 ha (17,472
ac). This comprises less than one percent of the land within suitable
habitat of the current estimated range of the snake. If all three of
these facilities are constructed, there would likely be some level of
diminished resiliency associated with local populations of snakes.
However, the overall redundancy and representation of populations is
expected to remain at current levels due to the size of the subspecies'
range and the fact that these solar facilities are anticipated to be
limited in occurrence, only removing a small fraction of available
habitat compared to the total habitat available to snakes throughout
their range.
Roadways and transportation corridors raise similar concerns for
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. In most instances, new roads would be
associated with urban development or solar facilities. Roadways may
remove suitable habitat for the snake and could result in fatality of
individuals. However, data in our files indicate that populations of
Tucson shovel-nosed snakes are currently persisting along roads in
areas of high traffic use. Although roads have been documented to be
detrimental to snakes, particularly individuals, long-term studies show
that they do not have as significant an effect on the resiliency or
redundancy of populations as previously believed. Off-highway vehicle
(OHV) use could also have similar affects to Tucson shovel-nosed snakes
through habitat degradation when these vehicles create new trails.
However, OHV use is most likely to occur on ASLD or private lands near
larger urban developments, because OHV use is restricted on public
lands throughout the subspecies' range. Thus, the limited use of OHVs
on most BLM lands, which encompasses a large portion of lands with the
subspecies' current estimated range, is not expected
[[Page 56735]]
to reduce resiliency and redundancy of the subspecies throughout its
range.
Although there are some potential impacts to the Tucson shovel-
nosed snake resulting from urban development, solar development, and
roads associated with both forms of development, the estimated range of
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake includes large tracts of lands managed by
the BLM that contain suitable habitat for the snake. Collectively,
these specially managed areas include approximately 770,163 ha
(1,903,115 ac), which represents approximately 42 percent of the
1,835,591 ha (4,535,845 ac) of the suitable habitat within the current
estimated range of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. These lands include
wilderness areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs),
national monuments, and a wilderness study area. In addition to these
designated areas, there are several other tracts of BLM land that are
managed for wilderness characters and wildlife habitat within the range
of the subspecies. Although none of these lands are specifically
managed for the benefit of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake, they are
managed to maintain their natural state. As discussed previously, the
subspecies is a habitat generalist, and we assume that general habitat
management of these specially managed BLM lands will contribute to
maintenance of suitable habitat for the subspecies. Further, we expect
that these specially managed lands will be protected from potential
impacts in the foreseeable future and, thus, are likely to continue to
provide suitable habitat for the Tucson shovel-nosed snake into the
future. BLM lands outside of these special management areas are still
subject to multiple-use management, primarily livestock grazing and
recreational use, including OHV use. However, we have no evidence that
the effects of livestock grazing are a threat to Tucson shovel-nosed
snakes, and OHV use is restricted to existing routes under all BLM Land
and Resource Management Plans. Therefore, BLM lands that allow for
livestock grazing and limited OHV use will continue to provide suitable
habitat for the Tucson shovel-nosed snake.
Although most of the BLM land within the subspecies' range occurs
in the eastern portion of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake's range, the
western portion of the snake's range also includes large tracts of land
managed by the ASLD. This land can be sold at any time for the benefit
of the State Trust Land beneficiaries, but these lands in the western
portion of the snake's range are remote, and many are currently used
for livestock grazing. Therefore, we do not expect them to be sold in
the foreseeable future and anticipate that they will remain as suitable
habitat for the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. ASLD lands in the eastern
portion of the range of the snake have high potential for development;
however, as discussed above, they represent only a limited portion of
the suitable habitat available throughout the range of the snake.
Because these ASLD lands currently appear to support suitable Sonoran
Desertscrub habitat for the Tucson shovel-nosed snakes and the
subspecies is a habitat generalist, we assume that large tracts of
specially managed BLM land and remote ASLD land provide habitat for the
snake. In addition, we have location data that indicate the snake is
relatively evenly distributed throughout its range, including on these
protected lands (see ``Abundance'' section of the SSA Report).
In summary, we evaluated a variety of different factors that could
contribute to habitat loss for the subspecies. Urban development has
the highest potential to occur within the subspecies' range and is
likely to cause some level of habitat loss affecting the Tucson shovel-
nosed snake. Urban development is most likely to occur in the eastern
and north-central portion of the snake's range along the Interstate 10
corridor between Phoenix and Tucson and other outlying areas. If this
predicted urban development occurs at the high-end estimates we discuss
in the SSA Report, the total habitat lost is estimated to be
approximately 33 percent of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake's suitable
habitat. Conversely, protected lands will likely continue to provide
suitable habitat for the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. Large areas of BLM
land, including vast areas of specially managed lands, containing
suitable habitat occur throughout the range of the subspecies. These
specially managed BLM lands include approximately 42 percent of the
suitable habitat throughout the snake's current estimated range. All of
these public lands containing habitat for the Tucson shovel-nosed snake
are expected to be managed as such in perpetuity, ensuring continued
resiliency, redundancy, and representation of snake populations
throughout its range. Overall, we expect some level of habitat loss to
result from urban development, solar energy development, and roads
associated with both forms of development. However, these impacts do
not currently have, nor are they likely to have in the future, a
significant species-level effect because much of the development has
already occurred, and the spatial and temporal effect of development
into the foreseeable future will be limited and is offset by the
presence of protected lands. Our new understanding of the size of the
subspecies' range, the snake's known distribution throughout its range,
and the lack of pervasive threats throughout its range indicate the
existence of the necessary resources for the subspecies' persistence
now and in the long term, even if development occurs as described
above. In conclusion, due to the distribution and extent of suitable
habitat within the subspecies' current estimated range, the subspecies
exhibits resiliency, redundancy, and representation such that it does
not meet the definition of an endangered or a threatened species under
the Act.
Finding
Standard for Review
Section 4 of the Act, and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(b)(1)(a) of the Act, the Secretary is to make endangered or
threatened species determinations required by the section 4(a)(1)
solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available to her after conducting a review of the status of the species
and after taking into account conservation efforts by States or foreign
nations. The standards for determining whether a species is an
endangered or threatened species are provided in section 3 of the Act.
An endangered species is any species that is ``in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' A threatened
species is any species that is ``likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.'' Per section 4(a)(1) of the Act, in reviewing the status
of the species to determine if it meets the definition of ``an
endangered species'' or of a ``threatened species,'' we determine
whether any species is an endangered or threatened species because of
any of the following five factors: (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; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence.
Until recently, the Service has presented its evaluation of
information under the five listing factors in an
[[Page 56736]]
outline format, discussing all of the information relevant to any given
factor and providing a factor-specific conclusion before moving to the
next factor. However, the Act does not require findings under each of
the factors, only an overall determination as to status (e.g.,
endangered species, threatened species, not warranted). Ongoing efforts
to improve the efficiency and efficacy of the Service's implementation
of the Act have led us to present this information in a different
format that we believe leads to greater clarity in our understanding of
the science, its uncertainties, and the application of our statutory
framework to that science. Therefore, while the presentation of
information in this rule differs from past practice, it differs in
format only. We have evaluated the same body of information we would
have evaluated under the five listing factors outline format, we are
applying the same information standard, and we are applying the same
statutory framework in reaching our conclusions.
Endangered or Threatened Species Throughout Its Range
Subsequent to our 2010 12-month finding, substantial new
information has become available related to the genetics, range, and
distribution of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. On the basis of our
biological review documented in the SSA Report, we have found merit in
the recent genetic work presented in Wood et al. (2014, entire) and
have revised our understanding of the range of the Tucson shovel-nosed
snake based on this genetic information. As a result, the range of the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake is considerably larger than the range we
considered in our 2010 12-month finding. Therefore, in the associated
SSA Report, we evaluated the various past, current, and future
stressors known to negatively affect the Tucson shovel-nosed snake, but
we expanded our analysis to include the entirety of the redefined range
of the subspecies.
The primary past, current, and ongoing stressor to the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake is habitat loss resulting from existing and
potential future urban development. Secondary sources of habitat loss
likely to affect the subspecies on a smaller-scale include solar energy
development, road construction and maintenance, conversion of lands to
agricultural use, wildfires, climate change, and drought. All of these
stressors related to habitat loss are likely the most significant to
the subspecies because they have the potential to remove Sonoran
Desertscrub habitat that is necessary for individuals to complete their
life history and for populations to maintain resiliency supported by
sufficient intact tracts of habitat. Our analysis acknowledges that
stressors resulting in habitat loss, including urban development, will
continue to occur in portions of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake's range;
however, we evaluated the scope and effect of these stressors
throughout the subspecies' redefined range, and conclude that these
stressors are limited to a small portion of the subspecies' range.
Furthermore, a meaningful portion of the range of the Tucson shovel-
nosed snake is, and will be, protected for the foreseeable future under
existing specific management by the BLM that is focused on maintaining
intact Sonoran Desertscrub habitat. As a result, we expect stressors
resulting in habitat loss may diminish the resiliency of local snake
populations in portions of the subspecies' range but will not reduce
the subspecies' resiliency, redundancy, and representation throughout
its range. We conclude that adequate suitable habitat for the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake will be available for the foreseeable future.
Other potential stressors that we evaluated include overutilization
for commercial and scientific purposes, disease, and predation.
Unregulated take of Tucson shovel-nosed snakes is likely infrequent
because specimens can be difficult to locate in the wild and are
similar in appearance to venomous coral snakes, causing humans to be
less likely to capture them. Disease has not been documented in Tucson
shovel-nosed snakes, and, while predation by a variety of carnivores is
known to occur, there is no information suggesting that predation
occurs at higher levels than expected in a normally functioning
ecosystem. Thus, these stressors are not reducing the subspecies'
resiliency, redundancy, or representation and, therefore, are not
reducing its viability.
Tucson shovel-nosed snakes are found throughout the entirety of
their redefined range, and it does not appear that the various
stressors described above are occurring at such a magnitude that they
are diminishing the subspecies' resiliency, redundancy, and
representation throughout its range. Furthermore, the genetic work by
Wood et al. (2014, entire) indicate that there is substantial genetic
variability within the Tucson shovel-nosed snake, and that there
appears to be ongoing exchange of genetic material within Tucson
shovel-nosed snake populations, as well as among the subspecies of the
western shovel-nosed snake. We are not aware of any other potential
stressors or threats that may impact the subspecies or its habitat
individually or in combination, as further discussed in the SSA Report.
Because the Tucson shovel-nosed snake is a habitat generalist and due
to the distribution and extent of suitable habitat within the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake's estimated range, the subspecies exhibits
resiliency, redundancy, and representation such that it does not meet
the definition of an endangered or threatened species. Therefore, we
find that listing the Tucson shovel-nosed snake as an endangered or a
threatened species throughout its range is not warranted.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
Because we find that the Tucson shovel-nosed snake does not warrant
listing as endangered or threatened throughout its range, we next
consider whether there is an alternative characterization of the
subspecies that may warrant listing under the Act as defined by policy
or regulation. The Act provides for the consideration of listing of
distinct vertebrate population segments (DPSs) as defined within
section 3 of the Act. Under the Service's Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the
Endangered Species Act (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996),
three elements are considered in the decision concerning the
establishment and classification of a possible DPS. These are applied
similarly for addition to or removal from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. These elements include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder
of the species to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population segment to the species to
which it belongs; and
(3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the
Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is
the population segment endangered or threatened).
Discreteness
Under the DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of these
conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist
[[Page 56737]]
that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
With regard to the Tucson shovel-nosed snake, our evaluation of the
status of this subspecies, as outlined in the SSA Report, indicates
that the snake does not meet the criteria for discreteness required by
our DPS policy. The best available scientific information indicates
that there are no physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors within the range of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake that point to
any segment of the population being discrete. Genetic work shows
genetic diversity and evidence of genetic exchange across the range of
the snake, indicating that populations within the range are interacting
and are not discrete (Wood et al. 2008, entire; Wood et al. 2014,
entire). Furthermore, the Tucson shovel-nosed snake is not delimited by
international governmental boundaries within which differences in
control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or
regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Because there are no discrete population
segments within the Tucson shovel-nosed snake, it is unnecessary for us
to complete any further analysis under the DPS policy.
Significant Portion of the Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is an endangered or a threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines
``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and
``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' The term ``species'' includes ``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.'' We published a final policy interpreting the
phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578, July 1,
2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be an
endangered or a threatened species throughout a significant portion of
its range, the entire species is listed as an endangered or a
threatened species, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to
all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the
range of a species is ``significant'' if the species is not currently
an endangered or a threatened species throughout all of its range, but
the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so
important that, without the members in that portion, the species would
be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is
considered to be the general geographical area within which that
species can be found at the time the Service or the National Marine
Fisheries Service makes any particular status determination; and (4) if
a vertebrate species is an endangered or a threatened species
throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant portion is a
valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire taxonomic
species or subspecies.
The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including
analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and
reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether
any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status
determination we are making. Where we have found that the species is
neither an endangered nor a threatened species throughout all of its
range, we next determine whether the species is an endangered or a
threatened species throughout a significant portion of its range. If it
is, we list the species as an endangered or a threatened species,
respectively; if it is not, we conclude that listing the species is not
warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and either
an endangered or a threatened species. To identify only those portions
that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is
substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be
significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those
portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future.
Answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination
that the species is an endangered or a threatened species throughout a
significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in determining
whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required. A key part
of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated
in some way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly
throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further
consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only
to portions of the range that clearly do not meet the biologically
based definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion
clearly would not be expected to increase the vulnerability to
extinction of the entire species), those portions will not warrant
further consideration.
If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and
(2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis to
determine whether these standards are indeed met. The identification of
an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other
determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is an
endangered or a threatened species. We must go through a separate
analysis to determine whether the species is an endangered or a
threatened species in the SPR. To determine whether a species is an
endangered or a threatened species throughout an SPR, we will use the
same standards and methodology that we use to determine if a species is
an endangered or a threatened species throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats
it faces, it may be more efficient to address the ``significant''
question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine
that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to
determine whether the species is an endangered or a threatened species
there; if we determine that the species is not an endangered or a
threatened species in a portion of its range, we do not need to
determine if that portion is ``significant.''
We considered whether there are any significant portions of the
range where the Tucson shovel-nosed snake is in danger of extinction or
is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future by reviewing
the SSA Report with respect to the geographic concentration of threats,
and the significance of portions of the range to the conservation of
the subspecies. However, there were no portions of the subspecies'
range that we considered biologically ``significant'' because the
habitat conditions and distribution of the snake were generally similar
across the entire subspecies' range and there is relatively high
genetic diversity across the entire range. Therefore, we next chose to
identify any portions of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake's range where
the subspecies may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future. We concluded that the best available
information indicates that the impacts identified in the SSA Report do
not occur uniformly throughout the range of
[[Page 56738]]
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake. The most significant impact to the
Tucson shovel-nosed snake is urban development and associated
activities. The SSA Report describes that the majority of urban
development has occurred and will likely continue to occur within the
north-central and eastern portions of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake's
range, primarily along the Interstate 10 corridor. Because urban
development represents a permanent loss of Tucson shovel-nosed snake
habitat, it is within these areas that the extent of the impact could
be such that the Tucson shovel-nosed snake in this portion of the range
may be in danger of extinction or is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future. Having identified this portion of the range as
potentially having endangered or threatened status, we must next
determine if this portion of the range is significant. As described
above, we would consider such a portion of the range significant if,
should that portion of the range be theoretically extirpated, the
species in the remaining portion of the range would be in danger of
extinction now or in the foreseeable future (in other words, endangered
or threatened). The best available information suggests that, should
the Tucson shovel-nosed snake be extirpated from areas of urban
development in the north-central and eastern portions of its range, the
remainder of its range would retain adequate resiliency, redundancy,
and representation. There are no significant stressors to the remainder
of the range of the subspecies due, in large part, to the large areas
of habitat that would remain protected into the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that the Tucson shovel-nosed snake is not in danger
of extinction now, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, in
a significant portion of its range.
Based on the information presented in the SSA Report for the Tucson
shovel-nosed snake, and on the discussion above, we find that the best
available scientific and commercial information does not indicate that
the threats to the Tucson shovel-nosed snake rise to the level of
significance such that this subspecies is in danger of extinction now
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. As a result, we have determined that
this subspecies does not meet the definition of an endangered or
threatened species under the Act and are subsequently removing this
subspecies from our candidate list.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available in the SSA Report
(Service 2014, pp. 69-74), available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2014-0035, 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: September 9, 2014.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-22331 Filed 9-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P