2011 Federal Register, 76 FR 36049; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36049-36053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15399]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0036; MO 92210-0-0008]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Utah Population of the Gila Monster as an
Endangered or a Threatened Distinct Population Segment

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of a 90-day petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the Utah population of the Gila
monster (Heloderma suspectum) as an endangered or a threatened distinct
population segment (DPS) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), and to designate critical habitat. Based on our review,
we find that the petition does not present substantial information
indicating that listing the Utah population of the Gila monster may be
warranted, because the population does not constitute a DPS, and is
therefore not a listable entity under the Act. Therefore, we are not
initiating a status review in response to this petition. However, we
ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes
available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Gila monster or
its habitat at any time.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on June 21,
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number [FWS-R6-ES-2011-0036]. 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, Utah Ecological Services Office, 2369 West
Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 84119. Please submit any
new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this
finding to the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah
Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES), by telephone (801-975-3330)
or by facsimile (801-975-3331). 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)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information
otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we
are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition,
and publish our notice of

[[Page 36050]]

the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently
summarize in our 12-month finding.

Petition History

On January 27, 2010, we received a petition, dated January 22,
2010, from WildEarth Guardians and Daniel Beck, requesting that the
Utah population of the Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum) be listed as
threatened or endangered under the Act and critical habitat be
designated. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included
the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as
required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an April 5, 2010, letter to the
petitioners, we responded that we had reviewed the information
presented in the petition and determined that issuing an emergency
regulation temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the
Act was not warranted. We also stated that due to previously received
petitions, court orders, other listing actions with statutory
deadlines, and judicially approved settlement agreements, we
anticipated responding to the petition in Fiscal Year 2011. On May 20,
2010, WildEarth Guardians filed a notice of intent to sue regarding our
failure to complete a 90-day finding concerning their January 22, 2010,
petition. In a June 23, 2010, letter to the petitioners, we responded
that our funding and work activities prevented us from completing the
finding within 90 days; however, we had begun review of the petition.
On October 25, 2010, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint regarding
our failure to complete a 90-day finding concerning their January 22,
2010, petition. At this time, that case is stayed, pending final action
by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on a
notice of Tag-Along Actions filed on December 7, 2010. In Fiscal Year
2011, funding was made available to complete this 90-day finding. This
finding addresses the petition.

Previous Federal Actions

The Gila monster was included as a category 2 candidate species in
Federal Register notices dated December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454),
September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958), and November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982).
Category 2 candidates were taxa for which information was available
indicating that listing was possibly appropriate, but insufficient data
were available regarding biological vulnerability and threats. In the
February 28, 1996, Notice of Review (61 FR 7595), we discontinued the
use of multiple candidate categories and removed category 2 species
from the candidate list, which removed the Gila monster from the
candidate species list.

Species Information

Taxonomy
The Gila monster is a reptile in the family Helodermatidae, which
contains only one extant genus, Heloderma. The closest living relative
of Heloderma is the genus Varanus (monitor lizards) (Pregill et al.
1986, p. 167; Beck 2005, p. 17). Within Heloderma, there are two
surviving species, both of which are venomous--the Gila monster (H.
suspectum) and the beaded lizard (H. horridum) (Bogert and Del Campo
1956, pp. 9, 139-140; NatureServe 2009, p. 1). The genus Heloderma has
existed for at least 23 million years and during this time has
undergone relatively little morphological change (Beaman et al. 2006,
p. 1). The Gila monster was first described by Baird in 1859 in Pima
County, Arizona, near the Mexican border, but was not identified as a
new species until 1869 by Cope (Bogert and Del Campo 1956, p. 9). Two
potential subspecies of Gila monster have been described based upon
differing color patterns: The banded Gila monster (H. s. cinctum) in
the northern portion of the species' range and the reticulate Gila
monster (H. s. suspectum) in the southern portion of the species' range
(Beck 2005, pp. 26-27). However, recent analysis of mitochondrial and
nuclear DNA does not support subspecific categories for the Gila
monster (Douglas et al. 2010, pp. 159, 163). Nevertheless, the
taxonomic status at the species level is valid (Douglas et al. 2010, p.
153; Integrated Taxonomic Information System 2011, p. 1). Therefore, we
considered the petition in light of whether the petitioned DPS
constitutes a DPS of the valid species H. suspectum, rather than of the
banded Gila monster, H. s. cinctum.
Physical Description
The Gila monster is the largest native species of lizard in the
United States (Sullivan et al. 2004, p. 236). Adults typically have a
body length of 12 to 14 inches (in) (300 to 360 millimeters (mm)), not
including the tail (Beck 2005, p. 26). The tail adds an additional 6 to
7 in. (150 to 180 mm) (Bogert and Del Campo 1956, p. 17). Their average
body mass is slightly more than 1 pound (lb) (500 grams (g)) (Beck
2005, p. 26). They have distinctive rounded, beadlike bony deposits on
the back of their head, limbs, body, and tail (Beck 2005, p. 26). The
Gila monster's coloration is a pattern of typically four or five black
bands alternating with a pale yellow or orange background on the body,
and four or five additional black bands on the tail (Beck 2005, p. 26).
They have massive skulls, venom glands in the lower jaw, and a dark,
forked tongue (Beck 2005, p. 18).
Life History
Gila monsters are slow-moving lizards with a specialized feeding
niche that depends almost solely on vertebrate eggs and young in nests
(Beck 1990, p. 54; Beaman et al. 2006, p. 1). In Utah, their diet
consists primarily of infant cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus audubonii)
and desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi) eggs (Beck 1990, p. 55). Gila
monsters can ingest large quantities of prey (up to one-third of their
body weight) during a single feeding; consequently, as few as three
large meals can supply the yearly energy demands of an adult (Beck
1990, pp. 56, 63-64). They also can store large deposits of fat in
their tail and within their body cavity (McLuckie et al. 2007, p. 6).
This ability to consume large meals, combined with their low energy
demands while inactive, makes it unnecessary for Gila monsters to
frequently search for food (Beck 1990, p. 54). Gila monsters in Utah
and elsewhere throughout their range may spend more than 95 percent of
their time in underground shelters, with peak surface activity from
late April to mid June (Beck 1990, p. 54; Beck 2005, p. 92).
Gila monsters do not appear to inject venom into their prey; they
most likely use their venomous bite as a defense mechanism (Beck 1990,
p. 56; Beaman et al. 2006, p. 1). Although incidental to this
evaluation, it is noteworthy that several of the amino acid peptides
found in the venom of Gila monsters have valuable research and
pharmacological applications, including the treatment of Type 2
diabetes and possibly memory disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease
(Beck 2005, pp. 52-53).
Male Gila monsters fight for dominance in spring and early summer
during the mating season (Beck 2005, pp. 140-141). During these combat
bouts, which may last for hours, males use their heads in attempts to
gain or

[[Page 36051]]

maintain a superior position (Gienger and Beck 2007, p. 92). As with
other species, the winner has more opportunities to mate with receptive
females. After mating, during July and August, females lay four to
seven eggs (Bogert and Del Campo 1956, p. 118; Beck 2005, p. 147).
Hatchlings do not emerge from the nest until nearly a year later (Beck
2005, p. 147). It is not known whether incubation is actually 8 to 10
months, or if hatchlings remain in the nest through winter. The
incubation schedule may depend upon temperature, with development
possibly delayed by lower temperatures (Beck 2005, p. 147). Individuals
typically reach sexual maturity at 3 to 4 years of age (McLuckie et al.
2007, p. 5). Adult Gila monsters in one population in Arizona had a
mean life expectancy of 7.4 years (Beck 2005, p. 113). However, their
lifespan can frequently exceed 20 years in the wild (Beck 2005, p.
113).
Habitat
Rangewide, the Gila monster may be found from elevations near sea
level up to 5,600 feet (ft) (1,738 meters (m)) (Beck 2005, p. 26). The
Gila monster appears to be limited to habitat that receives more than
25 percent of its annual precipitation during the summer (Beck 2005, p.
29). The size of the species' home range is 15 to 363 acres (ac) (6 to
147 hectares (ha)), while three home ranges in Utah measured from 15 to
163 ac (6 to 66 ha) (Beck 2005, p. 91). The availability and quality of
suitable shelters affect habitat selection (Beck 2005, p. 91). In Utah,
Gila monsters favor rocky slopes, washes, and sandy valleys at the base
of sandstone bluffs (Beck 2005, p. 29). Dominant vegetation in the
species' habitat in Utah includes Larrea tridentata (creosote bush),
Artemisia filifolia (sand sage), and Coleogyne ramosissima (blackbrush)
(Beck 1990, p. 55).
Distribution, Abundance, and Trends
The Gila monster occurs in portions of the Mohave Desert in
southwestern Utah, southeastern Nevada, southeastern California, and
northwestern Arizona; in the Sonoran Desert in southwestern Arizona and
Sonora, Mexico; and in small portions of the Chihuahuan Desert in
southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico (Beck 2005, p. 26).
Its range throughout the United States and Mexico encompasses
approximately 80,000 to 1,000,000 square miles (mi) (200,000 to
2,500,000 square kilometers (km)) (NatureServe 2009, p. 5). In Utah, it
is found only in Washington County (Beck 2005, p. 29), which comprises
less than 1 percent of the species' total range. Important habitat for
the Gila monster occurs in the southern portion of Washington County,
including Red Cliffs Desert Reserve; Webb Hill; Smoot's Hill; the
locale including Stone Cliff, Bloomington West, and Stucki Springs; the
locale including Fort Pierce Wash, Warner Ridge, and Sand Mountain; and
Beaver Dam Slope (McLuckie et al. 2007, p. 23).
As stated previously, Gila monsters spend much of their time
underground and are difficult to accurately count. The current total
population size is unknown, but there are probably at least several
thousand adult Gila monsters rangewide (International Union for
Conservation of Nature 2010, p. 2). The species is ranked by
NatureServe as ``apparently secure'' rangewide, but ``critically
imperiled'' in Utah (NatureServe 2009, pp. 1-2). In the late 1970s and
early 1980s, there were 20 to 25 Gila monsters per square mi (8 to 10
per square km) near St. George, Utah. Recent development has likely
decreased that density (Beck 2005, p. 115); however, we have no
information concerning the current density.
Gila monster populations are declining over most of their range in
the United States, but the rate of decline is probably less than 30
percent over three generations (International Union for Conservation of
Nature 2010, p. 2). In Utah, the species is uncommon, and its current
population trend is suspected to be declining (McLuckie et al. 2007, p.
4). There were possibly 2,000 to 5,000 Gila monsters in Utah prior to
the 1930s and 450 to 800 individuals in 1985 (Beck 1985 in NatureServe
2009, p. 2).

Evaluation of the Utah Population of the Gila Monster as a Distinct
Population Segment

The petitioners requested that we list the Utah population of the
Gila monster as a DPS. To interpret and implement the DPS provisions of
the Act, the Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration published the Policy Regarding the Recognition of
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species
Act in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under the
DPS Policy, three elements are considered in the decision regarding the
establishment and classification of a population of a vertebrate
species as a possible DPS: (1) The discreteness of a population segment
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. Both discreteness and significance are used to
determine whether the population segment constitutes a valid DPS. If it
does, then the population segment's conservation status is used to
consider whether that DPS warrants listing. We address these elements
with respect to the Gila monster in Utah.

Discreteness

Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
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); or (2) it is
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.
Markedly Separated
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners assert that the Utah population of the Gila monster
is markedly separated from other populations throughout its range due
to geographic isolation as well as ecological, physiological and
behavioral factors. The petitioners assert that in Washington County,
Utah, the Virgin River Gorge and the Beaver Dam Mountains to the
southwest and the Pine Valley Mountains to the north separate the Utah
population from the rest of the species.
The petitioners also assert that Gila monster populations in the
Mohave Desert of Utah show physiological, ecological, and behavioral
differences due to the difference in precipitation patterns between the
Mohave and Sonoran Deserts. They assert that there is a difference in
aboveground activity between populations in the Mohave and Sonoran
Deserts, since Gila monsters in the Mohave Desert typically spend less
time above ground during late summer due to the absence of July and
August monsoons. Finally, they also describe a relatively high rate of
cutaneous water loss (water loss through the skin) specifically for the
Gila monster compared to that of other lizards from arid environments.

[[Page 36052]]

Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
We agree that the Virgin River Gorge and Beaver Dam Mountains may
present physical barriers within portions of Washington County, Utah.
However, Gila monster populations occur in Washington County on either
side of the Beaver Dam Mountains near the border with Nevada and
Arizona, as well as on either side of the Virgin River Gorge and
Interstate 15 near the Arizona border (McLuckie et al. 2007, p. 23);
therefore, information provided by the petitioners and readily
available in our files does not support the assertion that these
physical barriers may isolate the Utah population from populations of
Gila monsters in other States. The petition contains both a rangewide
map and a Washington County map, both of which indicate a patchy but
nevertheless contiguous population of Gila monsters between Utah and
the adjoining States of Arizona and Nevada (WildEarth Guardians and
Beck 2010, pp. 7-8). There are no intervening barriers between these
populations. We conclude that the Pine Valley Mountains are not
relevant to the discreteness analysis, because there are no Gila
monster populations in Utah north of the Pine Valley Mountains.
Therefore, we find that the petitioners do not present substantial
information indicating that the Gila monster in Utah may be markedly
separated from other Gila monster populations in the remainder of its
range as a consequence of physical factors.
Regarding the petitioners' claims concerning differences in
aboveground activity between Gila monster populations in the Mohave and
Sonoran Deserts, we find that this claim is irrelevant to the issue of
discreteness of the Utah population based upon physiological,
ecological, and behavioral differences because the boundary of the
Mohave Desert does not correspond with the boundaries of the petitioned
DPS. The Mohave Desert extends beyond southwestern Utah into portions
of southeastern Nevada, southeastern California, and northwestern
Arizona. Gila monsters are found in suitable habitat throughout the
Mohave Desert in each of these States (Beck 2005, p. 26; Douglas et al.
2010, p. 154). Any differences between Gila monsters in the Mohave and
Sonoran Deserts would not be unique to the Utah population. Therefore,
we find that the petitioner did not present substantial information
indicating that differences in aboveground activity between the Mohave
and Sonoran Deserts may result in discreteness of the petitioned DPS in
Utah from the remainder of the range of the taxon.
In conducting their analysis, the petitioners appear to have used
the incorrect standard when asserting that the Utah population of the
Gila monster constitutes a valid DPS on the basis of physiological
differences due to its high rate of cutaneous water loss. The
petitioners present information comparing the rate of cutaneous water
loss between Gila monsters and other species of lizard. However, our
DPS policy requires that a population be markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon (in this case, Heloderma suspectum) as a
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral
factors. The high degree of cutaneous water loss is apparently
characteristic of the Gila monster throughout its range (DeNardo et al.
2004, pp. 950-951), and is not unique to the Utah population.
Therefore, the Gila monster in Utah is not markedly separated from
other Gila monster populations due to a physiological difference in the
rate of cutaneous water loss.
International Boundaries With Differences in Exploitation, Management,
Status, or Regulations
Although the Gila monster also occurs in Mexico, the DPS proposed
by the petitioners occurs solely within the United States. Therefore,
there are no international governmental boundaries to consider.

Conclusion

The Gila monster has a patchy but contiguous distribution from Utah
into the adjoining States of Arizona and Nevada. The portion of the
species' range within the Mohave Desert includes southwestern Utah,
southeastern Nevada, southeastern California, and northwestern Arizona.
Since it is neither geographically isolated nor physiologically,
ecologically, or behaviorally different from other Gila monsters in the
Mojave Desert, the Utah population is not markedly separated from other
populations. Additionally, there are no international boundaries
adjacent to the Utah population. Therefore, we find that the petitioner
did not present substantial information indicating that the
discreteness criteria of our DPS policy have been met.

Significance

Under the DPS policy, a discrete population segment of a vertebrate
species may be considered significant if there is: (1) Persistence of
the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or
unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population
segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon;
(3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; or
(4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
We concluded in the previous section that the Utah population of
the Gila monster did not meet the discreteness criteria. Therefore, we
do not need to evaluate the significance criteria. However, while it is
not our normal practice, we would like to respond to the petitioners'
assertion that the Utah population of the Gila monster is significant
because of its unique ecological setting in Jurassic Navajo sandstone
and Holocene basaltic lava flows.
We agree that the geology of Washington County, Utah, is unusual,
but the geological setting does not equate to the ecological setting.
We consider the ecological setting to be the sum of all biotic and
abiotic components in a given environment. It encompasses not only
geology, but also other components such as climate, plant life, and
resident wildlife. We consider the ecological setting of the Utah
population of Gila monsters to be the Mohave Desert. As previously
noted, the Mohave Desert extends beyond southwestern Utah into portions
of southeastern Nevada, southeastern California, and northwestern
Arizona. Therefore, we find that the petitioner did not present
substantial information indicating that Utah may constitute a unique
ecological setting for the Gila monster, because the same setting
exists in the Mohave Desert in three other States.
Although the petitioner presented information on only one of the
four significance criteria, we also note that none of the other
significance criteria were met. As previously stated, the portion of
the species' range in Utah is less than 1 percent of the species' total
range throughout the United States and Mexico. Therefore, loss of the
Utah population would not result in a significant gap in the range of
the taxon. The Utah population does not represent the only surviving
natural occurrence of the taxon. Lastly, the Utah population does not
differ markedly from other populations with respect to genetic
characteristics (Douglas et al. 2010, pp. 154-159). Therefore, the
significance

[[Page 36053]]

criteria of our DPS policy have not been met.
Conservation Status
As stated previously, we determined that the Utah population of the
Gila monster does not meet the discreteness criteria or the
significance criteria. Therefore, the Utah population does not
constitute a valid DPS. As such, we do not need to evaluate whether the
information contained in the petition regarding the conservation status
in relation to the Act's standards for listing is substantial.

Finding

In summary, the petition does not present substantial information
supporting the characterization of the Utah population of the Gila
monster as a DPS, because the discreteness and significance criteria
were not met. Therefore, this population is not a valid listable entity
under section 3(16) of the Act.
On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act, we conclude that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information to indicate that listing the Utah
population of the Gila monster as a DPS as threatened or endangered
under the Act may be warranted at this time. Although we will not
review the status of the species at this time, we encourage interested
parties to continue to gather data that will assist with conservation
of the Gila monster. If you wish to provide information regarding the
Gila monster, you may submit your information or materials to the Utah
Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES) at any time.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Utah Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the
Mountain-Prairie Regional Office and the Utah Field Office (see
ADDRESSES).

Authority

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

Dated: June 8, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-15399 Filed 6-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P