Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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

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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Information

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

[[Page 27404]]

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

Background

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

Petition History

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

Previous Federal Action(s)

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

Species Information

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

[[Page 27405]]

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

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

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

[[Page 27406]]

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

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

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

[[Page 27407]]

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

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

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

C. Disease or Predation

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

[[Page 27408]]

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

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

[[Page 27409]]

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

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

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

[[Page 27410]]

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

[[Page 27411]]

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

Finding

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

References Cited

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

Author

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

Authority

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

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