![](media/image1.jpeg){width="0.7868055555555555in"
height="0.9125in"}Pima Natural Resource Conservation District

3241 N. Romero Road

Tucson, AZ 85705-9223

Phone (520) 292-2999 x 111 \* Fax (520) 292-9099

September 24, 2008

Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS--R2--ES--2008--0060 September 23,
2008

Division of Policy and Directives Management

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222

Arlington, VA 22203

Cc:

Correspondence Control Unit 

Attention: [Information Quality Correction Request
Processing]{.underline}

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop 3238-MIB 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

**Re**: \[FWS--R2--ES--2008--0060\]; \[1111--FY06--MO-B2\] 90-Day
Finding on a Petition To List the Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake (Chionactis
occipitalis klauberi) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat

To whom it may Concern:

The *[Pima Natural Resource Conservation District]{.underline}*, a
division of the *[Arizona State Lands Department]{.underline}*,
appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule for the
Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake (TSS). As a partner with ranchers and farmers
throughout eastern Pima County in soil conservation efforts such as
range management and cropland erosion management, we believe a listing
of the TSS could severely delay soil conservation projects due to the
very limited annual time frame of TSS activity for surveying.
Furthermore, the areas Rosen (2003) and Rosen (2007) recommend for
conservation are predominantly Arizona State School Trust Lands and
exclude areas already under protection. These School Trust Lands are not
public lands but are owned in trust by, and provide major funding to
their beneficiaries in the Arizona public education system. We therefore
consider the above referenced FWS information, as published in the
Federal Register, highly influential.

We disagree that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) opinion that the
scientific or commercial information indicating a listing of the TSS may
be warranted is \"substantial\". We believe the FWS arrived at this
conclusion based on studies commissioned by the town of Marana for its
own planning purposes. The FWS appears to have extrapolated the Town of
Marana research data using the unfounded assumption that survey results
obtained within the rapidly developing Town limits represent the entire
historic range of the TSS including protected lands. We believe this
methodology by the FWS, especially combined with the absence of any peer
review of the Rosen studies, introduces a strong unscientific bias into
the decision and is significantly inconsistent with the FWS Guidelines
on Information Quality.

We believe the scope of Dr. Rosen\'s grants prevented him from
identifying possible TSS habitat and population status outside municipal
areas as evidenced by his highly successful \"calibration\" runs to an
undeveloped edge of the Sonoran Desert National Monument. According to
the reference citings published by FWS, FWS has not yet contacted the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly known as the Soil
Conservation Service) to obtain NRCS soils maps to aid any search for
soil/vegetation biomes that might indicate TSS habitat. The Soil and
Water Conservation Act of 1977, however, requires that all federal
agencies including FWS work together with the NRCS and local Natural
Resource Conservation Districts, \"to the maximum extent practicable.\"
Likewise this is a requirement of other federal laws including the
National Environmental Policy Act.

We have concern that the TSS surveys were conducted outside the month of
May, when the cited references state activity peaks. It appears the
Rosen (2003, 2007) surveys were conducted in June when TSS activity,
according to the historic data cited, is half of May activity in Avra
Valley. The 2003 survey lasted only five evenings and yet is labeled
\"extensive.\" Rosen (2007) even mentions surveying in July when the
probability of finding TSS drops to almost zero. This may have
introduced negatively biased results.

We have further concern that negative bias was introduced by Dr.
Rosen\'s focused efforts along paved highways where traffic has
significantly increased, and concentrating on a site bordering the
Marana airport which has dramatically expanded since the 1970\'s,
although Rosen himself (Rosen 1994) states, \"It is clear that roadways,
especially if paved, substantially damage snake populations. We believe
Rosen (2003) merely proved that obvious point rather than provide
\"substantial\" evidence that the TSS may be facing extinction across
three predominantly rural AZ counties.

We disagree with the FWS conclusion that the petitioner has provided
substantial information that agriculture and urban development pose
substantial threats to the desert-scrub habitat of the TSS. We know that
the last known TSS was collected from Avra Valley in 1979, although
agriculture had been present in the same area since the 1960\'s, and the
area had been grazed since the previous century. We also observe that a
very substantial flood devastated Avra Valley in 1983, not long after
the 1979 collection. Dr. Rosen himself noted the hard adobe-like soils
that remain near the Brawley Wash. Dr. Rosen has not proven cause and
effect but merely guessed that irrigation agriculture rather than an
intensive flood is to blame.

Further, vast areas of desert-scrub habitat, never surveyed for the TSS,
lie within large restricted areas. These include but are not limited to
Picacho Peak State Park, Ironwood Forest National Monument, Tortolita
Mountain preserve, Sonoran Desert National Monument, Bureau of
Reclamation lands and Pima County\'s conservation ranches. All the named
areas are protected from new mining claims, new roads, residential
development, commercial development, and new developments of irrigated
agriculture. We therefore disagree with the FWS claim that these areas
offer insufficient regulatory protections to the TSS, especially
considering these activities are cited as the main threats to the TSS.
These areas were entirely ignored by Dr. Rosen\'s surveys, perhaps
merely because they are outside the scope of his grants. The FWS,
however, has introduced negative bias by ignoring them.

Please consider this letter a petition for correction of the information
disseminated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a correction in
accordance with the Information Quality Guidelines of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.

Sincerely,

Andrew McGibbon

Andrew McGibbon

Chair