Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12683 

3Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds. 

4Funded with FY 2010 funds. 

5Funded with FY 2011 funds. 

We have endeavored to make our 

listing actions as efficient and timely as 

possible, given the requirements of the 

relevant law and regulations, and 

constraints relating to workload and 

personnel. We are continually 

considering ways to streamline 

processes or achieve economies of scale, 

such as by batching related actions 

together. Given our limited budget for 

implementing section 4 of the Act, these 

actions described above collectively 

constitute expeditious progress. 

The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly will 

be added to the list of candidate species 

upon publication of this 12-month 

finding. We will continue to monitor the 

status of this species as new information 

becomes available. This review will 

determine if a change in status is 

warranted, including the need to make 

prompt use of emergency listing 

procedures. 

We intend that any proposed listing 

action for the Mt. Charleston blue 

butterfly will be as accurate as possible. 

Therefore, we will continue to accept 

additional information and comments 

from all concerned governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested party 

concerning this finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

is available on request from the Nevada 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: February 11, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4884 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0011; MO 

92210–0–0008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Texas Kangaroo 

Rat as Endangered or 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 

Texas kangaroo rat, Dipodomys elator, 

as endangered or threatened and to 

designate critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. Based on our review, we find 

that the petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing the Texas 

kangaroo rat may be warranted. 

Therefore, with the publication of this 

notice, we are initiating a status review 

to determine if listing the Texas 

kangaroo rat is warranted. To ensure the 

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 May 9, 

2011. Please note that if you are using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline 

for submitting an electronic comment is 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date. 

After May 9, 2011, you must submit 

information directly to the Arlington 

Ecological Services 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: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the box that 

reads ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the 

Docket number for this finding, which 

is FWS–R2–ES–2011–0011. Check the 

box that reads ‘‘Open for Comment/ 

Submission,’’ and then click the Search 

button. You should then see an icon that 

reads ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ Please 

ensure that you have found the correct 

rulemaking before submitting your 

comment. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2– 

ES–2011–0011; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all information received 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: 

Thomas J. Cloud, Jr., Field Supervisor, 

Arlington Ecological Services Field 

Office, 711 Stadium Drive, Suite 252, 

Arlington, TX 76011; by telephone (817) 

277–1100; or by facsimile (817) 277– 

1129. 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 Texas kangaroo rat 

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; 

(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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12684 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

species under section 4(a) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (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) Current land use or recent trends 

in north-central Texas as they pertain to 

both cultivated crop and cattle ranching. 

If, after the status review, we 

determine that listing the Texas 

kangaroo rat 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, within the geographical range 

currently occupied by the Texas 

kangaroo rat, we request data and 

information on: 

(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species;’’ 

(2) Where such physical or biological 

features are currently found; and 

(3) Whether any of these features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. 

In addition, we request data and 

information on ‘‘specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species’’ that are ‘‘essential to the 

conservation of the species.’’ Please 

provide specific comments and 

information as to what, if any, critical 

habitat you think we should propose for 

designation if the species is proposed 

for listing, and explain 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 you submit 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 will be 

available for you to review at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or you may make 

an appointment during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arlington Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) 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 submitted with the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files at the time we 

make the finding. The following five 

documents represent information 

contained within our files and are cited 

in this document: Jones and Bogan 

(1986), Martin (2002), Shaw (1990), 

Stangl and Schafer (1990), and Wahl 

(1987). All other cited references were 

supplied as part of the petition. 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 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 is 

subsequently summarized in our 12- 

month finding. 

Petition History 

On January 15, 2010, we received a 

petition dated January 11, 2010, from 

WildEarth Guardians of Denver, 

Colorado, requesting the Texas kangaroo 

rat be listed as endangered or threatened 

and that critical habitat be designated 

under the Act. The petition clearly 

identified itself as such and included 

the requisite identification information 

for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 

424.14(a). In a July 19, 2010, letter to the 

petitioner, we responded that we 

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 court orders and 

judicially approved settlement 

agreements for other listing and critical 

habitat determinations under the Act 

that required nearly all of our listing 

and critical habitat funding for fiscal 

year 2010, we would not be able to 

further address the petition at that time 

but would complete the action when 

workload and funding allowed. This 

finding addresses the petition. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The Texas kangaroo rat was 

previously listed as a category 2 

candidate species under the Act on 

December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454). 

Category 2 candidates were taxa for 

which information in our possession 

indicated that proposing to list was 

possibly appropriate, but for which 

substantial data on biological 

vulnerability and threats were not 

available to support a proposed listing 

rule. On December 5, 1996, we 

published a notice of decision that 

discontinued the practice of 

maintaining a category 2 candidate list 

(61 FR 64481). 

Species Information 

The Texas kangaroo rat (Dipodomys 

elator), also referred to as Loring’s 

kangaroo rat (Davis 1942, pp. 328–329), 

was first described by Merriam in 1894 

(pp. 109–110). Merriam (1894, pp. 109– 

110) originally stated D. elator was 

similar to the banner-tailed kangaroo rat 

(D. spectabilis) based on general 

external morphology (body structure) 

and Phillip’s kangaroo rat (D. phillipsii) 

based on its cranial arch (curve of the 

skull). Dalquest and Collier (1964, p. 

148) suggested D. elator most resembles 

D. ornatus (no common name) with 

regard to its habits, appearance, and 

skull. Best and Schnell (1974, p. 266) 

also indicated the Texas kangaroo rat 

most resembled D. ornatus based on 

bacular (penis bone) measurements. 

Measurements taken from the baculum, 

a bone found in the penis of some 

mammals, varies in shape and size by 

species and its characteristics are 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12685 

sometimes used to differentiate between 

similar species. More recent studies 

have suggested the Texas kangaroo rat is 

closely associated with Phillip’s 

kangaroo rat, although these studies did 

not include D. ornatus in their 

methodology (Hamilton et al. 1987, p. 

777; Mantooth et al. 2000, p. 888). Even 

though the phylogenetic relationship 

(genetic relationship of a group of 

organisms) between Dipodomys species 

is not currently resolved, we accept the 

characterization of the Texas kangaroo 

rat as a species because this status is 

generally accepted in the scientific 

community (Mantooth et al. 2000, p. 

885). 

The Texas kangaroo rat has an average 

total length of approximately 290 

millimeters (mm) (11.4 inches (in)) 

(Merriam 1894, p. 109), and has large 

hind feet as is typical of members of this 

genus. It has a brownish-yellow dorsum 

(upper surface) and is whitish along its 

ventral (belly) surface. The Texas 

kangaroo rat also has a white-tipped tail 

and four toes on its hind feet, 

distinguishing it from Ord’s kangaroo 

rat (D. ordii), which has five toes on its 

hind feet and whose range overlaps that 

of the Texas kangaroo rat (Caire et al. 

1989, p. 204). 

Generally, Texas kangaroo rats inhabit 

arid areas that are not prone to flooding 

(Martin 2002, p. 34); are characterized 

by short, sparse grasses (Dalquest and 

Collier 1964, p. 147; Goetze et al. 2007, 

p. 18; Nelson et al. 2009, p. 126); and 

contain little woody canopy cover 

(Goetze et al. 2007, p. 18). Texas 

kangaroo rats prefer areas where the soil 

contains a sufficient clay component to 

support their burrows (Bailey 1905, p. 

149; Dalquest and Collier 1964, p. 148; 

Roberts and Packard 1973, p. 958; 

Martin and Matocha 1991, p. 355; 

Goetze et al. 2007, p. 17), although it is 

not exclusively restricted to such soils 

(Martin and Matocha 1991, p. 355). 

Their burrows are often associated with 

Prosopis spp. (mesquite trees) (Dalquest 

and Collier 1964, p. 147; Martin and 

Matocha 1972, p. 875), although 

subsequent research has suggested this 

association may be circumstantial 

(Stangl et al. 1992b, p. 31; Goetze et al. 

2007, p. 20; Nelson et al. 2009, p. 128). 

For dust bathing, Texas kangaroo rats 

require areas of bare ground that may 

not be available in patches of dense 

vegetation (Goetze et al. 2008, pp. 312– 

313; Nelson et al. 2009, p. 127). As such, 

the Texas kangaroo rat appears to 

opportunistically burrow in minimally 

disturbed areas (Stangl et al. 1992b, pp. 

25–35; Goetze et al. 2007, p. 19; Nelson 

et al. 2009, pp. 128–129). 

Texas kangaroo rats primarily feed on 

grass seeds (Chapman 1972, pp. 878– 

879). However, the seeds, leaves, fruits, 

and flowers of annual forbs may also be 

a significant portion of their diet 

(Chapman 1972, pp. 878–879). Although 

they do not tend to construct their 

burrows in croplands (Martin and 

Matocha 1972, p. 874), Texas kangaroo 

rats may occasionally enter agricultural 

fields to gather seeds (Chapman 1972, p. 

879). Similar to other kangaroo rats, the 

Texas kangaroo rat stores food items in 

burrow caches (Chapman 1972, p. 879). 

Little is known about this species’ 

reproductive behavior or physiology (a 

branch of biology that deals with the 

functions and activities of life or of 

living matter, i.e., organs, tissues, or 

cells), although it is known that the 

species does not hibernate and evidence 

suggests it may be capable of breeding 

throughout the year (Carter et al. 1985, 

p. 1). 

The first recorded instance of the 

Texas kangaroo rat was a specimen 

collected in 1894 from Clay County, 

Texas (Merriam 1894, p. 109). In 1905, 

this species was reported from the 

Chattanooga vicinity, Comanche 

County, Oklahoma (Bailey 1905, pp. 

148–149). Since these early records, 

additional Texas kangaroo rat sightings 

have been recorded from the following 

counties: Archer, Baylor, Childress, 

Clay, Cottle, Foard, Hardeman, 

Montague, Motley, Wichita, and 

Wilbarger Counties, Texas; and 

Comanche and Cotton Counties, 

Oklahoma (Dalquest and Collier 1964, 

pp. 146–147; Packard and Judd 1968, p. 

536; Martin and Matocha 1972, pp. 873– 

876; Cokendolpher et al. 1979, p. 376; 

Baumgardner 1987, pp. 285–286; Martin 

and Matocha 1991, p. 354; Martin 2002, 

p. 10). A single, disjunct record was 

reported from an unverified sighting in 

Coryell County, Texas; however, 

subsequent attempts to confirm its 

presence in this region have failed, 

suggesting the original sighting was 

probably false (Martin and Matocha 

1972, pp. 874–875; Martin 2002, p. 10). 

The present extent of the Texas 

kangaroo rat’s distribution is largely 

unknown, but evidence indicates that 

the species may inhabit only half of its 

former range. Of the 11 Texas counties 

that once contained Texas kangaroo rats, 

it has been suggested that only 5 were 

known to support them in 2002: Archer, 

Childress, Hardeman, Motley, and 

Wichita (Martin 2002, p. 10). The 

petition cites surveys published in peerreviewed scientific journals that we 

deem as reliable information, and 

indicates that the species may be 

extirpated from Oklahoma, having last 

been sighted there in 1969 

(Baumgardner 1987, pp. 285–286; Moss 

and Mehlhop-Cifelli 1990, p. 357; Stangl 

et al. 1992a, p. 19). However, more 

surveys are needed to determine the 

species’ current distribution. 

Evaluation of Information for This 

Finding 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 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 exposure of the species to a 

particular factor to evaluate whether the 

species may respond to that factor in a 

way that causes actual impacts to the 

species. If there is exposure to a factor 

and the species responds negatively, the 

factor may be a threat and we attempt 

to determine how significant a threat it 

is. The threat may be significant if it 

drives, or contributes to, the risk of 

extinction of the species such that the 

species may warrant listing as 

endangered or threatened as those terms 

are defined by the Act. The 

identification of factors that could 

impact a species negatively may not be 

sufficient to compel a finding that 

substantial information has been 

presented suggesting that listing may be 

warranted. The information should 

contain evidence or the reasonable 

extrapolation that any factor(s) may be 

an operative threat that acts on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of endangered or 

threatened under the Act. 

In making this 90-day finding, we 

evaluated whether information 

regarding threats to the Texas kangaroo 

rat, 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12686 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition asserts that present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the habitat or range of the 

Texas kangaroo rat threatens this 

species such that listing may be 

warranted. It identifies five key 

components affecting the destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of this 

species’ habitat and range: 

(1) Conversion of native habitat to 

cropland; 

(2) Loss of historical ecological 

processes; 

(3) Domestic livestock grazing; 

(4) Brush control; and 

(5) Development and roads. 

The petition suggests that crop fields 

and cultivated land are uninhabitable by 

Texas kangaroo rats (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, p. 11). It estimates that 

greater than 15 percent of the range of 

the Texas kangaroo rat is encroached 

upon by agriculture, with areas in 

southwestern Oklahoma being the most 

impacted (WildEarth Guardians 2010, 

pp. 11–12); however, the petition did 

not provide information regarding 

current land use trends within this 

species’ range. The petition also states 

that human activities have altered the 

natural ecological processes within the 

range of the Texas kangaroo rat and 

specifically identifies the extirpation of 

bison and prairie dogs and suppression 

of naturally occurring fires (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, pp. 13–16). It claims 

that these natural factors were 

historically responsible for creating and 

maintaining Texas kangaroo rat habitat, 

and that their alteration has negatively 

impacted the species (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, p. 13). The petition 

suggests that domestic livestock grazing 

has historically been a threat to the 

Texas kangaroo rat by promoting the 

encroachment of weeds and woody 

shrubs, although it also suggests 

alterations in rangeland management 

techniques may benefit the species by 

promoting shortened vegetation and 

areas of bare ground (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, p. 16). In addition, the 

petition suggests that development and 

roads have encroached on Texas 

kangaroo rat habitat (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, pp. 16–19), thereby 

increasing the risks of predation and 

direct mortality from vehicle collisions 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 25). 

However, it did not explicitly indicate 

how the encroachment of other urban 

developments may affect this species. 

Lastly, the petition suggests that brush 

control, particularly through the use of 

chemicals, may be responsible for the 

degradation of Texas kangaroo rat 

habitat (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 

20). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

The sources cited within the petition 

provide reliable and accurate 

information regarding the potential 

impacts that the conversion of native 

habitat to cropland, the loss of historical 

ecological processes, domestic livestock 

grazing, development and roads, and 

brush control may have on the Texas 

kangaroo rat. However, upon further 

examination of the cited materials, we 

note that the portrayal of this 

information within the petition may be 

misleading, and the information 

requires further examination, as it does 

not adequately address the potential 

positive impacts that some of these 

factors may have on the Texas kangaroo 

rat or its habitat. An examination of the 

materials cited in the petition and of 

those contained within our files is 

presented below. 

One of the primary factors that may be 

negatively impacting the Texas 

kangaroo rat is conversion of native 

habitat to cropland. The conversion of 

native habitat to cropland results in a 

loss of habitat because the Texas 

kangaroo rat does not construct burrows 

in agricultural crops (Martin and 

Matocha 1972, p. 874; Martin 2002, pp. 

33–34; Goetze et al. 2007, p. 18; Goetze 

et al. 2008, p. 313; Nelson et al. 2009, 

pp. 119–120). Additionally, in regions 

with substantial agricultural 

development, Texas kangaroo rats can 

often be found burrowing along the 

disturbed shoulder of roads, suggesting 

the practice of cultivating crop land to 

the margins of roads may further 

preclude this species from utilizing 

these areas (Wahl 1987, p. 2; Martin 

2002, pp. 35–36). Further, given their 

relatively small home ranges and 

movement patterns (Roberts and 

Packard 1973, pp. 958–961; Stangl and 

Schafer 1990, p. 6), the fragmentation of 

suitable habitat by agricultural 

cultivation of land may isolate Texas 

kangaroo rats from other nearby 

populations, thereby reducing genetic 

exchange (Wahl 1987, p. 2). Over time, 

reduced genetic exchange may cause 

isolated populations to die out from the 

deleterious effects of inbreeding (Keller 

and Waller 2002, pp. 230–241). Thus, 

there appears to be substantial 

information indicating that loss of 

habitat due to conversion of native 

rangeland into cropland may be 

negatively impacting the species. Based 

on the above evaluation, we find that 

the information provided in the 

petition, as well as other information 

readily available in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the loss of 

burrowing habitat due to the conversion 

of rangeland to cropland may pose a 

threat to the Texas kangaroo rat such 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. 

The petition also asserts that, in 

addition to loss of burrowing habitat, 

the conversion of native rangeland to 

cropland results in a loss of foraging 

habitat, which has been presumed to be 

a key factor in the disappearance of the 

Texas kangaroo rat from Oklahoma 

(Moss and Melhop-Cifelli 1990, p. 357). 

However, the use of cropland for 

foraging is not completely understood. 

Goetze et al. (2008, p. 313) did not 

record any Texas kangaroo rats foraging 

in, or otherwise utilizing, adjacent 

wheat fields, either before or after 

harvesting. In contrast, through an 

analysis of cheek pouch contents, 

Chapman (1972, pp. 878–879) indicated 

Texas kangaroo rats foraged in adjacent 

oat fields following harvest. Bailey 

(1905, p. 149) found a single specimen 

whose pouches contained grain from a 

nearby corn field. Therefore, based on 

information in our files, there is 

evidence that Texas kangaroo rats will 

forage in croplands. Thus, the 

conversion of rangeland to cropland 

does not seem to result in a loss of 

foraging habitat. Based on the above 

evaluation, we find that the information 

provided in the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the loss of foraging 

habitat due to the conversion of 

rangeland to cropland may pose a threat 

to the Texas kangaroo rat such that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

Free-ranging bison, prairie dog 

colonies, and naturally occurring fires 

contributed to creation and maintenance 

of prairies containing short vegetation 

and areas of bare ground, the preferred 

habitat of the Texas kangaroo rat (Stangl 

et al. 1992b, pp. 33–34; Nelson et al. 

2009, p. 128). The propensity of the 

Texas kangaroo rat to inhabit disturbed 

areas may be indicative of the species 

having evolved in the presence of these 

three factors. The petition asserts that 

removal of bison, prairie dogs, and 

naturally occurring fires from the 

historical range of the Texas kangaroo 

had a negative impact on this species. 

However, information in our files 

indicates that Texas kangaroo rats occur 

in habitats without bison, prairie dogs 

colonies, or natural fires (Dalquest and 

Collier 1964, pp. 146–147; Packard and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12687 

Judd 1968, p. 536; Martin and Matocha 

1972, pp. 873–876; Cokendolpher et al. 

1979, p. 376; Baumgardner 1987, pp. 

285–286; Martin and Matocha 1991, p. 

354; Martin 2002, p. 10). In addition, 

given the persistence of Texas kangaroo 

rats in areas without bison, prairie dog 

colonies, or natural fires, it appears that, 

while each may help create and 

maintain suitable habitat, they are not 

essential for its survival. In the absence 

of these historical processes, heavy 

cattle grazing and anthropomorphic 

disturbances may create suitable Texas 

kangaroo rat habitat (Stangl et al. 1992b, 

p. 34; Martin 2002, p. 35; Goetze et al. 

2007, p. 19; Nelson et al. 2009, pp. 120– 

129). Therefore, information provided 

by the petitioner and in our files does 

not indicate that the lack of free-ranging 

bison, prairie dog colonies, and 

naturally occurring fires has contributed 

to loss of habitat for the Texas kangaroo 

rat. Based on the above evaluation, we 

find that the information provided in 

the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, fails to meet our standard for 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the lack of 

free-ranging bison, prairie dog colonies, 

and naturally occurring fires may pose 

a threat to the Texas kangaroo rat such 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. 

Domestic livestock grazing was noted 

by the petition as a factor negatively 

impacting the Texas kangaroo rat by 

promoting the encroachment of weeds 

and woody shrubs. The petitioner cites 

Hafner (1998, p. 16) in suggesting that 

the Texas kangaroo rat is vulnerable to 

grazing pressures because grazing 

presumably degrades grasslands. We 

believe this claim lacks substantiation 

because grazing that produces areas of 

short vegetation interspersed with bare 

ground is conducive to Texas kangaroo 

rat inhabitation (Stangl et al. 1992b, p. 

32; Martin 2002, p. 34; Nelson et al. 

2009, p. 120). On the other hand, ranch 

management practices that are designed 

to maintain dense grass stands lacking 

areas of bare ground are not suitable for 

maintaining Texas kangaroo rat habitat 

(Goetze 2001, pp. 1–3; Martin 2002, p. 

34; Nelson et al. 2009, p. 120). Under 

light to moderate grazing pressure, 

localized areas of heavy grazing and soil 

disturbance can be achieved through the 

strategic placement of supplemental 

feeders and stock tanks (Stangl et al. 

1992b, pp. 32–34). 

The petition also claims that cattle 

grazing can lead to rangeland 

encroachment by weeds, woody shrubs, 

and invasive plants that can be 

detrimental to the Texas kangaroo rat 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 16). 

According to information we reviewed, 

the mere presence of woody shrubs, 

weedy species, and nonnative plants 

does not preclude the presence of Texas 

kangaroo rats. In fact, a study of cheek 

pouch contents indicated that a wide 

variety of plants, including several 

nonnative species, serve as possible 

food sources for the Texas kangaroo rat 

(Dalquest and Collier 1964, pp. 147– 

148; Chapman 1972, pp. 878–879; Carter 

et al. 1985, p. 1), and that woody forbs 

may collect wind-blown soil in which 

this species constructs its burrows 

(Nelson et al. 2009, p. 120). 

We believe that, besides heavy grazing 

regimes, burrowing and forage habitat 

for Texas kangaroo rats is not negatively 

impacted by livestock grazing. Based on 

the above evaluation, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, fails to meet our 

standard for substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

domestic livestock grazing may pose a 

threat to the Texas kangaroo rat such 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. 

The petition suggests that brush 

control, particularly through the use of 

chemicals, is responsible for the 

degradation of Texas kangaroo rat 

habitat (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 

20). Although not scientifically 

assessed, Chapman (1972, p. 879) found 

that chemically treated brush control 

sites showed little evidence of Texas 

kangaroo rat inhabitation, and indicated 

additional studies should be conducted 

to quantify the effects of range and 

agricultural practices on this species. In 

contrast, Stangl et al. (1992b, p. 31) 

found that chemical brush control 

actually enhanced Texas kangaroo rat 

habitat by providing more bare ground 

and grassy areas that the species prefers 

(Goetze et al. 2007, p. 18). Further, 

Texas kangaroo rats have also been 

shown to preferentially construct 

burrows on elevated soil mounds, 

including those that formed around old 

brush piles (Nelson et al. 2009, pp. 124, 

128). Thus, we find no evidence that 

brush control, even through the use of 

chemicals, is having a detrimental effect 

on Texas kangaroo rat habitat. Based on 

the above evaluation, we find that the 

information provided in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, fails to meet our 

standard for substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

brush control may pose a threat to the 

Texas kangaroo rat such that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

The petition suggests that 

development and roads have 

encroached on Texas kangaroo rat 

habitat (WildEarth Guardians 2010, pp. 

16–19), thereby increasing the risks of 

predation and direct mortality from 

vehicle collisions (WildEarth Guardians 

2010, p. 25). While development and 

road construction have increased 

throughout the historic range of the 

Texas kangaroo rat since its description 

by Merriam in 1894, the impact of urban 

expansion on the species’ status is 

unclear. Brock and Kelt (2004, pp. 638– 

639) suggest that roads increase the 

likelihood of predation of Texas 

kangaroo rats and facilitate invasion by 

exotic plants. Martin (2002, p. 35) found 

that Texas kangaroo rats extensively 

utilize suitable, previously disturbed 

areas along the edges of roadsides, 

including roadside habitats within 

agricultural areas, where they may 

otherwise be precluded. Others have 

noted that Texas kangaroo rats (Roberts 

and Packard 1973, p. 960; Stangl and 

Schafer 1990, p. 11; Stangl et al. 1992b, 

p. 34), and other similar species (Brock 

and Kelt 2004, pp. 633–639), may 

preferentially use dirt roads as 

migration corridors. Also, it is well 

established that nighttime road surveys 

are an easy and effective way to 

determine the presence of the Texas 

kangaroo rat, suggesting they do not 

entirely avoid these areas. Although 

there are reports of specimens killed by 

vehicular traffic (Dalquest and Collier 

1964, p. 146; Jones et al. 1988, p. 249), 

information we reviewed suggests that 

this is not having a negative impact on 

the overall species’ status. 

Additionally, Texas kangaroo rats are 

nocturnal and remarkably tolerant of 

human presence (Stangl et al. 2005, p. 

140; Goetze et al. 2008, p. 310), 

suggesting that urban development 

around otherwise suitable habitat may 

not preclude their inhabitance. There is 

some indication that Texas kangaroo 

rats are less active on brightly moonlit 

nights and more active during the 

darkest times of the night (Jones et al. 

1988, p. 253; Stangl and Schafer 1990, 

p. 4; Martin 2002, p. 31), suggesting 

light may negatively affect this species. 

In contrast, others have noted this 

species is tolerant of higher light levels 

(Bailey 1905, p. 149; Goetze et al. 2008, 

p. 314). Based on the above evaluation, 

we find that the information provided in 

the petition, as well as other 

information readily available in our 

files, fails to meet our standard for 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that 

development and roads may pose a 

threat to the Texas kangaroo rat such 

that the petitioned action may be 

warranted. 

In conclusion, the fragmentation of 

the native landscape by conversion of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12688 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

land to cropland has likely impacted the 

Texas kangaroo rat by reducing 

burrowing habitat. This threat, in 

conjunction with the species’ limited 

long-distance mobility, may be 

impairing the species’ ability to 

maintain viable populations by 

genetically isolating them from one 

another (Wahl 1987, p. 1). However, the 

effects of cattle grazing, encroachment 

of roads and development, and brush 

control methods on Texas kangaroo rat 

habitat are less certain, and may be 

beneficial under certain circumstances. 

Similarly, it appears that loss of 

historical disturbance by bison, prairie 

dogs, and fire may be offset by heavy 

grazing of domestic cattle. We will 

further analyze potential threats under 

Factor A during our status review for 

this species. 

Therefore, we find that the 

information presented in the petition, as 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information to indicate that the Texas 

kangaroo rat may warrant listing due to 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range, primarily due 

to conversion of native rangeland to 

agricultural cropland. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific or Educational 

Purposes 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition claims that early 

scientific overutilization involving the 

collection and preservation of Texas 

kangaroo rat specimens may have had 

an impact on its range contraction 

(WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 20). As 

indicated in the petition, many early 

scientific studies of Texas kangaroo rats 

resulted in preservation of specimens as 

museum vouchers (Dalquest and Collier 

1964, p. 146; Packard and Judd 1968, 

pp. 535–536; Martin and Matocha 1972, 

p. 876; Cokendolpher et al. 1979, p. 376; 

Hamilton et al. 1987, p. 776). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

We acknowledge that the historical 

collection and preservation of Texas 

kangaroo rat specimens were lethal 

means of collection; however, we have 

no evidence that collections occurred at 

a level that impacted the status of the 

species. Further, current collection 

methods have resulted in fewer deaths. 

More recent studies have used livetrapping techniques, although Texas 

kangaroo rats left overnight in traps are 

susceptible to cold nightly temperatures 

and may die following release (Stangl 

and Schafer 1990, p. 9). In conclusion, 

we acknowledge that scientific studies 

have resulted in the death of Texas 

kangaroo rats, but neither the petition 

nor information within our files 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

collection was, or is, occurring at a level 

that impacts the overall status of the 

species. Therefore, we find the petition 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information to indicate that 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes may present a threat to the 

Texas kangaroo rat such that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition did not identify disease 

or predation as factors impacting Texas 

kangaroo rats. In fact, the petition 

suggests that there are no records of 

natural predation acting as a threat to 

Texas kangaroo rats. However, the 

petition identifies several Texas 

kangaroo rat parasites, but indicates that 

disease is not currently known to be a 

major mortality factor. The petition also 

recommends further investigation of the 

potential for sylvatic plague to affect the 

Texas kangaroo rat (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, pp. 20–21). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

After reviewing the original source 

material cited with the petition, we find 

that the information within the petition 

is reliable and accurate regarding Texas 

kangaroo rat disease and predation. 

Information in our files suggests that the 

potential for infection from sylvatic 

plague does exist, but the disease rarely 

causes mortality in Texas kangaroo rats 

(Martin 2002, p. 30). A number of 

external parasites (Thomas et al. 1990, 

pp. 111–114) and an internal parasite 

(Pfaffenberger and Best 1989, pp. 76–80) 

are known to use the Texas kangaroo rat 

as a host, but their effects on the 

survival and proliferation of this species 

are not known. Even though the Texas 

kangaroo rat is exposed to disease, there 

is no evidence to indicate that the 

species is responding to the factor in a 

way that causes actual impacts to the 

species. 

Similarly, there is no evidence 

indicating predation is having an impact 

on the species. Stangl et al. (2005, p. 

139) found that the Texas kangaroo rat 

was underrepresented in the diet of barn 

owls, and attributed this partly to the 

auditory and locomotion abilities of the 

rat, which allowed it to escape 

predation. Remnants of a similar 

species, the Ord’s kangaroo rat 

(Dipodomys ordii), were found in only 

4.3 percent of coyote scats in south 

Texas, suggesting coyotes may not 

depend heavily on kangaroo rats as a 

part of their diet (Martin 2002, p. 29). 

In addition, domesticated cats have 

been found to prey on the Texas 

kangaroo rats, but only to a limited 

extent (Martin 2002, p. 29). Although 

available information in the petition and 

our files suggests that Texas kangaroo 

rats are susceptible to predation, the 

information we reviewed does not 

suggest that predation occurs at levels 

that act as a significant limiting factor to 

the species throughout its range. 

We reviewed information in our files 

and the information provided by the 

petitioners, and did not find substantial 

information to indicate that disease or 

predation may be outside the natural 

range of variation such that either could 

be considered a threat to the Texas 

kangaroo rat. Therefore, we find the 

petition does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information to 

indicate that disease or predation may 

present a threat to the Texas kangaroo 

rat such that the petitioned action may 

be warranted. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition claims there are 

insufficient existing regulatory 

mechanisms protecting the Texas 

kangaroo rat. While this species is listed 

as threatened under Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Code, Chapter 68, this status 

does not prevent the destruction or 

degradation of Texas kangaroo rat 

habitat (WildEarth Guardians 2010, p. 

21). 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

We find that the information within 

the petition, although limited, is reliable 

and accurate regarding the inadequacies 

of existing regulatory mechanisms in 

protecting the Texas kangaroo rat. As 

discussed above under Factor A, Texas 

kangaroo rats do not inhabit cultivated 

cropland; thus, the expansion of 

cultivated cropland may fragment 

existing populations until they are no 

longer viable (Wahl 1987, p. 1). The 

‘‘threatened’’ status of the Texas 

kangaroo rat under Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Code does not preclude further 

land conversion in areas occupied by 

the species. Therefore, we find that the 

information provided in petition, as 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 12689 

well as other information readily 

available in our files, presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating the petitioned 

action may be warranted due to the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

Information Provided in the Petition 

The petition claims that road 

construction, extermination programs, 

and climate change are, or may become, 

threats to the continued existence of the 

Texas kangaroo rat (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, pp. 21–26). The effects 

of road construction on this species are 

evaluated above under Factor A. The 

petition suggests that kangaroo rat 

extermination programs in the 1920s 

and 1930s were initiated because these 

species were implicated in the ongoing 

desertification of rangeland. The 

petition also provides evidence of 

climate change trends (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, pp. 21–24) and 

suggests that the ensuing ecological 

changes would make this species’ 

current range more unsuitable for its 

inhabitation. 

Evaluation of Information Provided in 

the Petition and Available in Service 

Files 

After reviewing the original source 

material cited in the petition, we find 

that these sources are reliable and 

accurate. However, we believe that the 

portrayal of this information within the 

petition requires further examination as 

described below. 

The petitioner claims that 

extermination programs may be 

threatening the continued existence of 

the Texas kangaroo rat. Sjoberg et al. 

(1984, p. 13) suggested that kangaroo 

rats, particularly the banner-tailed 

kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spectabilis), 

whose mound system is extensive, were 

treated by various methods to remove 

them from rangelands. However, the 

Texas kangaroo rat does not make 

extensive mounds, and its exceptionally 

small burrow entrances occupy very 

little of the landscape (Bailey 1905, p. 

149; Carter et al. 1985, p. 1; Martin 

2002, p. 3). This species also has 

minimal economic impact on 

agriculture (Martin 2002, p. 3). 

Therefore, it is unlikely the Texas 

kangaroo rat was historically subjected 

to extensive eradication efforts, and 

there is no evidence presented by the 

petitioner or readily available in our 

files indicating that the Texas kangaroo 

rat was impacted by eradication efforts 

aimed at other species. In addition, the 

Texas kangaroo rat is currently 

protected as a nongame species under 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 

68, making such eradication efforts 

illegal. Therefore, we found no evidence 

that extermination programs are 

negatively impacting the Texas 

kangaroo rat. 

Also, the petition asserts that climate 

change trends will make the current 

range more unsuitable for the Texas 

kangaroo rat to inhabit (WildEarth 

Guardians 2010, pp. 21–24). The 

petitioner presents information that 

plant and animal communities are 

expected to shift toward the poles or 

increase in altitude with increasing 

global temperatures and drought 

conditions (Parmesan et al. 2000, p. 443; 

Cameron and Scheel 2001, p. 676; Root 

and Schneider 2002, pp. 22–23; Karl et 

al. 2009, pp. 72, 132). However, the 

petition does not provide substantial 

information indicating how pole-ward 

shifts in plant and animal communities 

would negatively impact the Texas 

kangaroo rat. We believe that increasing 

global temperatures and drought 

conditions will likely have little impact 

on kangaroo rats because they are 

physiologically and behaviorally well 

adapted to warm, arid landscapes 

(Sjoberg et al. 1984, p. 12). In addition, 

Texas kangaroo rats do not appear to be 

particularly dependent on any single 

type of vegetation for survival, and are 

capable of adapting to changing 

vegetation as is evident from their 

behavior of gathering nonnative plant 

seeds (Dalquest and Collier 1964, pp. 

147–148; Chapman 1972, pp. 878–879). 

As such, the information we reviewed 

does not indicate that climate changeinduced, pole-ward shifts in plant and 

animal communities would result in the 

Texas kangaroo rat’s current range 

becoming unsuitable for the species to 

inhabit. 

The petition further claims that 

climate change models show a loss of 

Texas kangaroo rat habitat. Cameron 

and Scheel (2001, p. 664) predicted that 

between 48 and 80 percent of suitable 

Texas kangaroo rat habitat would be lost 

under two different climate change 

models. These losses were estimated 

from a 2001 baseline of approximately 

103,400 square kilometers (km2) (39,923 

square miles (mi2)) of suitable Texas 

kangaroo rat habitat, and following 

correction for vegetation preferences 

(Cameron and Scheel 2001, p. 664). 

However, the combined acreage of the 

11 Texas counties from which the Texas 

kangaroo rat has been recorded is 

approximately 24,500 km2 (9,460 mi2), 

a value much closer to their precorrected habitat estimate of 21,200 km2

(Cameron and Scheel 2001, p. 655). This 

suggests that the model may have 

overestimated current suitable habitat. 

In addition, the study found vegetation 

preference significantly affected habitat 

suitability for this species while soil 

preferences were not significant 

(Cameron and Scheel 2001, p. 655). In 

contrast, Shaw (1990, p. 16) found 

Texas kangaroo rat distributions to vary 

significantly with soil type. 

Furthermore, Cameron and Scheel 

(2001, p. 659) did not assess habitat 

outside of Texas. If animals are 

generally predicted to move pole-ward 

as a result of climate change, the Texas 

kangaroo rat may partially relocate to 

Oklahoma, which was not included as 

part of the Cameron and Scheel (2001) 

study. Even though Cameron and Scheel 

(2001, p. 664) predicted theoretically 

severe implications for climate change 

on the Texas kangaroo rat based on their 

models, we could find no evidence to 

substantiate their claims. Additional 

analysis is needed to determine the 

effect of these impacts on the Texas 

kangaroo rat. We will further analyze 

the potential impacts of climate change 

on the species during our status review. 

Therefore, we find the petition does 

not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

other natural or manmade factors may 

affect the continued existence of the 

Texas kangaroo rat such that the 

petitioned action may by warranted. 

Finding 

On the basis of our determination 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

find that the petition presents 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

Texas kangaroo rat throughout its entire 

range may be warranted. This finding is 

based on potential threats posed under 

Factor A, The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range, and 

Factor D, The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms. Specifically, 

we find that the loss of burrowing 

habitat and genetic isolation of 

populations due to the conversion of 

native rangeland to agricultural 

cropland, and the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms to 

protect against such land conversion, 

may pose a threat to the Texas kangaroo 

rat throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, such that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. The 

information provided under Factors B, 

C, and E was not substantial. 

Because we have found that the 

petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Texas kangaroo rat may be warranted, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

12690 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

we are initiating a status review to 

determine whether listing the Texas 

kangaroo rat under the Act is warranted. 

The ‘‘substantial information’’ 

standard for a 90-day finding differs 

from the 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 Arlington Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is a 

staff member of the Arlington Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: February 16, 2011. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5177 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS