16836 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Inventory (TRI) Surface Water Releases and recordkeeping requirements, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and Transfers to POTWs, March 13, Toxic chemicals. Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media 1995. Dated: March 29,1995. Bureau, (202) 418–2180. (5) Letter of February 2, 1995 to Carol Susan H. Wayland, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a M. Browner, Administrator U.S. EPA summary of the Commission’s Report from Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Chair, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. and Order, MM Docket No. 94–67, Executive Committee, Science Advisory adopted March 16, 1995, and released Board. Therefore it is proposed that, 40 CFR March 28, 1995. The full text of this part 372 be amended as follows: IX. Regulatory Assessment Commission decision is available for Requirements PART 372Ð[AMENDED] inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission’s A. Executive Order 12866 1. The authority citation for part 372 Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR would continue to read as follows: Street, NW, Washington, D.C. The 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048. complete text of this decision may also must determine whether the regulatory be purchased from the Commission’s action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore § 372.65 [Amended] copy contractors, International subject to review by the Office of 2. Sections 372.65(a) and (b) are Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Management and Budget (OMB) and the amended by removing the entire entry Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, D.C. requirements of the Executive Order. for ammonium sulfate (solution) and 20037, (202) 857–3800. Under section 3(f), the order defines a ammonium nitrate (solution) and by List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an adding the following language to the action likely to lead to a rule (1) Having ammonia listing ‘‘includes anhydrous Radio broadcasting. an annual effect on the economy of $100 ammonia and aqueous ammonia from Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, million or more, or adversely and water dissociable ammonium salts and 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154, as amended. materially affecting a sector of the other sources; 10 percent of total Federal Communications Commission. economy, productivity, competition, aqueous ammonia is reportable under John A. Karousos, jobs, the environment, public health or this listing’’ under paragraph (a) and Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules safety, or State, local, or tribal removing the entire CAS No. entry for Division, Mass Media Bureau. governments or communities (also 7783–20–2 and 6484–52–2 under [FR Doc. 95–7947 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am] referred to as ‘‘economically paragraph (b). significant’’); (2) creating serious BILLING CODE 6712±01±F inconsistency or otherwise interfering [FR Doc. 95–8202 Filed 3–30–95; 1:29 pm] with an action taken or planned by BILLING CODE 6560±50±F another agency; (3) materially altering DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Fish and Wildlife Service COMMISSION raising novel legal or policy issues 50 CFR Part 17 arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles 47 CFR Part 73 RIN 1018±AD11 set forth in this Executive Order. [MM Docket No. 94±67; RM±8481] Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Order, it has been determined that this Radio Broadcasting Services; and : Proposal To Determine amended proposed rule is not Collegeville, MN Endangered Status for Three Wetland ‘‘significant’’ and therefore not subject Species Found in Southern Arizona AGENCY: to OMB review. Federal Communications and Northern Sonora Commission. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act Interior. of 1980, the Agency must conduct a SUMMARY: This document dismissed a ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of small business analysis to determine petition for rule making filed by Saint petition findings. whether a substantial number of small John’s University requesting the entities would be significantly affected allotment of Channel 260A to SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife by a proposed rule. Because the Collegeville, Minnesota, and reservation Service (Service) proposes endangered amended proposed rule does not create of the channel for noncommercial status pursuant to the Endangered any new requirements and consolidates educational use. See 59 FR 35292, July Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended, other requirements, it would not 11, 1994. In reviewing this proceeding, for two plants, delitescens significantly affect facilities, including we discovered that we erroneously (Canelo Hills ladies’-tresses) and small entities. proposed reservation of the channel at Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva Collegeville. The Notice should only (Huachuca water umbel), and one C. Paperwork Reduction Act have proposed allotment of a channel to amphibian, the Sonora tiger salamander This amended proposed rule does not Collegeville. Saint John’s proposal does (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi). These result in any new information collection not meet the established guidelines to species occur in a limited number of requirements subject to the provisions reserve a channel in the commercial wetland habitats in southern Arizona of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, band. Since no comments were received and northern Sonora, Mexico. They are 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. expressing an intention to use the threatened by one or more of the channel as a commercial station, we following—collecting, disease, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372 have terminated the proceeding without predation, competition with nonnative Environmental protection, Chemicals, making an allotment. With this action, species, catastrophic floods, drought, Community right-to-know, Reporting this proceeding is terminated. and degradation and destruction of Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16837 habitat resulting from livestock tiger salamander occupy small portions root tissue and fungi) (McClaran and overgrazing, water diversions, dredging, of these rare habitats. Sundt 1992). The time needed for and groundwater pumping. All three Spiranthes delitescens (Canelo Hills subterranean structures to produce taxa are also threatened with stochastic ladies’-tresses). Spiranthes delitescens is aboveground growth is unknown. Plants extirpations or extinction due to small a slender, erect, terrestrial orchid that may remain dormant in a subterranean numbers of populations or individuals. when in bloom reaches approximately state or remain vegetative This proposed rule, if made final, would 50 centimeters (cm) 20 inches (in)) tall. (nonflowering) for more than one extend the Act’s protection to these Five to ten, linear-lanceolate, grass-like consecutive year. Plants that flower one three taxa. leaves, 18 cm (7.1 in) long and 1.5 cm year can be dormant, vegetative, or (0.6 in) wide, grow basally on the stem. DATES: Comments from all interested reproductive the next (McClaran and parties must be received by June 2, The fleshy swollen roots are Sundt 1992, Newman 1991). The 1995. Public hearing requests must be approximately 5 millimeters (mm) (0.2 saprophytic/autotrophic state of orchid received by May 18, 1995. in) in diameter. The top of the flower plants may be determined by climatic stalk contains up to 40 small white fluctuations and edaphic factors such as ADDRESSES: Comments and materials flowers arranged in a spiral. The species pH level, temperature and soil moisture should be sent to the Arizona Ecological is presumed to be perennial, but mature (Sheviak 1990). Services State Office, U.S. Fish and plants rarely flower in consecutive years Estimating Spiranthes population size Wildlife Service, 3616 West Thomas and in some years have no visible and stability is difficult because Road, Suite 6, Phoenix, Arizona 85019. aboveground structures (McClaren and nonflowering plants are very hard to Comments and materials received will Sundt 1992, Newman 1991). find in the dense vegetation, and yearly be available for public inspection, by P.S. Martin first collected Spiranthes counts underestimate the population appointment, during normal business delitescens in 1968 at a site in Santa because dormant plants are not counted. hours at the above address. Cruz County, Arizona (Sheviak 1990). McClaran and Sundt (1992) monitored FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: This specimen was first identified as marked individuals in a Spiranthes Jim Rorabaugh at the above address Spiranthes graminea, a related Mexican population during two three-year (telephone 602/640–2720: facsimile species. Sheviak (1990) found that the periods. They concluded that the 602/379–6629). Spiranthes in Arizona, previously subpopulations at both monitored sites thought to be S. graminea, displayed a were stable between 1987 and 1989, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: distinct set of morphological and although Newman (1991) later reported Background cytological characteristics and named that one monitored site was reduced to them S. delitescens. one nonflowering in 1991. Due to Cienegas are mid-elevation wetland This species is known from four the propensity of Spiranthes plants to communities often surrounded by cienegas at about 1,525 meters (m) enter and remain in a vegetative state relatively arid environments. They are (5,000 feet (ft)) elevation in the San and the lack of new flowering plants at typically associated with permanent Pedro River watershed in Santa Cruz one monitoring site. McClaran and perennial springs and stream and Cochise Counties, southern Arizona Sundt (1992) also speculated that headwaters, have permanently or (Newman 1991). The total amount of population numbers may be declining. seasonally saturated highly organic occupied habitat is less than 81 hectares Problems of experimental design soils, and have a low probability of (ha) (200 acres (ac)). All populations are acknowledged by the authors flooding or scouring (Hendrickson and on private land less than 37 kilometers confounded McClaran and Sundt’s Minckley 1984). Cienegas support (km) (23 miles (mi)) north of the U.S./ (1992) conclusions about population diverse assemblages of animals and Mexico border. stability; the Service believes additional plants, including many species of Potential habitat in Sonora, Mexico, long-term studies are needed to more limited distribution, such as the three has been surveyed, but no Spiranthes accurately determine the stability of taxa in this proposed rule (Hendrickson populations have been found. Spiranthes populations. and Minckley 1984, Lowe 1985, The dominant vegetation associated The fire ecology of this Spiranthes is Minckley and Brown 1982, Ohmart and with Spiranthes includes grasses. Carex unknown, but should be determined. Anderson 1982). Although Spiranthes spp. (sedges), Juncus spp. (rushes), Experts disagree about the role of fire in delitescens (Spiranthes), Lilaeopsis spp. (spike rushes), cienegas. Some believe upland schaffneriana spp. recurva (Lilaeopsis), spp. (cattails), and spp. lightning-caused fires spread into and Sonora tiger salamander typically (horsetails) (Cross 1991, Warren et al. cienegas and burn at cool temperatures occupy different microhabitats, they all 1991). The surrounding vegetation is while others believe the wet, marsh-like occur in cienegas: Lilaeopsis also occurs semidesert grassland or oak savannah. habitats will not support fires. along streams and rivers. All Spiranthes populations occur Determining the best method of Cienegas and perennial streams and where scouring floods are very unlikely managing healthy cienegas will depend, rivers in the desert southwest are (Newman 1991). Soils supporting the in part, on resolving this controversy. extremely rare. The Arizona Game and populations are finely grained, highly Studies at one site have been Fish Department (1993) recently organic, and seasonally or perennially inconclusive about the effect of fires on estimated that riparian vegetation saturated. Springs are the primary water Spiranthes (Gori and Fishbein 1991, associated with perennial streams source, but a creek near one population Fishbein and Gori 1992). comprises about 0.4 percent of the total contributes near-surface groundwater Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva Arizona land area, with present riparian (McClaran and Sundt 1992). (Huachuca water umbel). Lilaeopsis areas being remnants of what once Some Spiranthes life history schaffneriana ssp. recurva is an existed. The State of Arizona (1990) information has been gained from herbaceous, semi-aquatic, perennial estimates that up to 90 percent of the studies at one site. As with most plant with slender, erect leaves that riparian habitat along Arizona’s major terrestrial orchids, successful seedling grow from creeping rhizomes. The desert watercourses has been lost, establishment probably depends on the leaves are cylindrical, hollow, and have degraded, or altered in historic times. formation of endomycorhizae (a septa (thin partitions) at regular Spiranthes, Lilaeopsis, and the Sonora symbiotic association between plant intervals. The yellow-green or bright 16838 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules green leaves are generally 1–3 mm the Tucson area (Davis 1986). In 1859, Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum (0.04–0.12 in) in diameter and often 3– a traveler described the Santa Cruz (watercress) (Warren et al. 1991). The 5 cm tall (1–2 in), but can reach up to River in the Tucson area as a ‘‘* ** expansion and contraction of Lilaeopsis 20 cm (8 in) tall under favorable rapid brook * * * clear as crystal, and populations appears to depend on the conditions. Three to ten very small full of aquatic plants, fish and tortoises presence of ‘‘refugia’’ where the species flowers are born on an umbel that is of various kinds * * *’’ (in Humphrey can escape the effects of scouring floods, always shorter than the leaves. The 1958). This habitat and species a watershed with an unaltered fruits are globose, 1.5–2 mm (0.06–0.08 assemblage no longer occurs in the hydrograph, and a healthy riparian in) in diameter, and usually slightly Tucson area. A population at Monkey community that stabilizes the channel. longer than wide (Affolter 1985). The Spring in the upper watershed of the Density of Lilaeopsis plants and size species reproduces sexually and from middle Santa Cruz River has been of populations fluctuates in response to rhizomes asexually, the latter probably extirpated, although suitable habitat still both flood cycles and site being the primary reproductive mode. exists (Warren et al. 1991). characteristics. Some sites, such as Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva Two Lilaeopsis populations occur in Black Draw, have a few sparsely was first described by A.W. Hill, based the Rio Yaqui watershed. The species distributed clones, possibly due to the on the type specimen collected near was recently discovered at Presa dense shade of the even-aged overstory Tucson in 1881 (Hill 1926). Hill applied Cuquiarichi, in the Sierra de los Ajos, trees and deeply entrenched channel. the name Lilaeopsis recurva to the several miles east of Cananea, Sonora The Sonoita Creek population occupies specimen, and the name prevailed until (Deecken, pers. comm. 1994). The 14.5 percent of a 500.5 m2 (5.385 ft2) Affolter (1985) revised the genus. species remains in small areas patch of habitat (Gori et al. 1990). Some Affolter applied the name L. (generally less than 1 square meter (m2)) populations are as small as 1–2 m2 (11– schaffneriana ssp. recurva to plants in Black Draw, Cochise County, 22 ft2). The Scotia Canyon population, found west of the continental divide. Arizona. Transplants from Black Draw by contrast, has dense mats of leaves. Lilaeopsis has been documented from have been successfully established in Scotia Canyon contains the largest 21 sites in Santa Cruz and Cochise nearby wetlands and ponds. Recent Lilaeopsis population, occupying about Counties, Arizona, and in adjacent renovation of House Pond on private 57 percent of the 1.450 m (4,756 ft) Sonora, Mexico, west of the continental land near Black Draw extirpated the perennial stream reach (Gori et al. 1990, divide (Saucedo 1990, Warren et al. Lilaeopsis population. A population in J. Abbott, Forest Supervisor, Coronado 1989, Warren et al. 1991, Warren and the Rio San Bernardino in Sonora was National Forest, in litt. 1994). The Reichenbacher 1991). Six of the 21 sites also recently extirpated (Gori et al. Coronado National Forest plans to have been extirpated. The 15 extant 1990). One Lilaeopsis population occurs continue monitoring the populations in sites occur in four major watersheds— in the Rio Sonora watershed at Ojo de Scotia and Bear canyons. San Pedro River, Santa Cruz River, Rio Agua, a cienega in Sonora at the While the extent of occupied habitat Yaqui, and Rio Sonora. All sites are headwaters of the river (Saucedo 1990). can be estimated, it is impossible to between 1,148 and 2,133 m (3,500 and Lilaeopsis has an opportunistic determine the number of individuals in 6,500 ft) elevation. strategy that ensures its survival in each population because of the Eight Lilaeopsis populations occur in healthy riverine systems, cienegas, and intermeshing creeping rhizomes. A the San Pedro River watershed in springs. In upper watersheds that population of Lilaeopsis may be Arizona and Sonora, on sites owned or generally do not have scouring floods, composed of one or many genetically managed by private landowners, the Lilaeopsisoccurs in microsites where distinct individuals. Fort Huachuca Military Reservation, the interspecific plant competition is low. Introduction of Lilaeopsis into ponds Coronado National Forest, and the At these sites, Lilaeopsis occurs on on the San Bernardino National Wildlife Bureau of Land Management (BLM)- wetted soils interspersed with other Refuge (Refuge) appears to have been Safford District. Two extirpated plants at low density, along the successful (Warren 1991). In 1991, populations in the upper San Pedro periphery of the wetted channel, or in Lilaeopsis was transplanted from Black watershed in Arizona occurred at Zinn small openings in the understory. The Draw into new ponds and other Refuge Pond in St. David and the San Pedro upper Santa Cruz River and associated wetlands. Transplants placed in areas River near St. David. Cienega-like springs in the San Rafael Valley, where with low plant density expanded habitats suitable for Lilaeopsis were a population of Lilaeopsis occurs, is an rapidly (Warren 1991). In 1992, probably common along the San Pedro example of a site that meets these Lilaeopsis naturally colonized a pond River prior to 1900 (Hendrickson and conditions. the types of microsites created in 1991. However, as plant Minckley 1984, Jackson et al. 1987), but required by Lilaeopsis were generally competition increased around the these habitats are now largely gone. lost from the main stems of the San perimeter of the pond, the Lilaeopsis The four Lilaeopsis populations in the Pedro and Santa Cruz rivers when population decreased. This response Santa Cruz River watershed probably channel entrenchment occurred in the seems to confirm observations (K. represent very small remnants of larger late 1800s. Cobble, San Bernardino National populations that may have occurred in In stream and river main channels, Wildlife Refuge, pers. comm. 1994, and the extensive riparian and aquatic Lilaeopsis can occur in backwaters, side P. Warren, pers. comm. 1993) that other habitat formerly along the river. Before channels, and nearby springs. After a species such as Typha sp. (cattails) will 1890, the spatially intermittent, flood, Lilaeopsis can rapidly expand its outcompete Lilaeopsis. perennial flows on the middle Santa population and occupy disturbed Other reintroductions are being Cruz River most likely provided a habitat until interspecific competition considered. The Service has funded a considerable amount of habitat for exceeds its tolerance. This response was project to reintroduce Lilaeopsis on the Lilaeopsis and other aquatic plants. The observed at Sonoita Creek in August Santa Cruz River and tributaries, and middle section of the Santa Cruz River 1988, when a scouring flood removed the BLM (1993) plans to re-establish it mainstem, about a 130–km (80–mi) about 95 percent of the Lilaeopsis along the San Pedro River. reach, flowed perennially from the U.S./ population (Gori et al. 1990). One year Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma Mexico border north to the Tubac area later, Lilaeopsis had recolonized the tigrinum stebbinsi). The Sonora tiger then intermittently from Tubac north to stream and was again codominant with salamander is a large salamander with Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16839 light-colored blotches or reticulation on stebbinsi occur, may represent a occur at localities in Sonora and a dark background. Snout-vent lengths relictual grassland and a refugium for Chihuahua to the south and east of the of metamorphosed individuals range tiger salamander populations that extant range of the Sonora tiger from approximately 6.7–12.5 cm (2.6– became isolated and, over time, salamander (Collins 1979, Collins and 4.9 in) (Jones et al. 1988. Lowe 1954). genetically distinct. Jones 1987, Van Devender and Lowe Larval salamanders are aquatic with Based on color patterns and 1977). A. t. mavortium occurs at plume-like gills and well developed tail electrophoretic analysis, Ambystoma scattered localities to the east in the San fins (Behler and King 1980). Larvae collected in Mexico at one site in Pedro, Sulphur Springs, and San Simon hatched in the spring are large enough Sonora and 17 sites in Chihuahua were Valleys (Collins and Jones 1987), but at to metamorphose into terrestrial all A. rosaceum, not A. t. stebbinsi least some of these populations were salamanders from late July to early (Jones et al. 1988). Reanalysis of introduced by anglers and bait September, but only an estimated 17–40 reported A. t. stebbinsi collected in collectors (Collins 1981, Lowe 1954, percent metamorphose annually. Sonora (Hansen and Tremper 1979) and Nickerson and Mays 1969). Remaining larvae mature into at Yepomera, Chihuahua (Van Devender A variety of human activities threaten branchiates (aquatic and larval-like, but 1973) revealed that these specimens the Sonora tiger salamander. The sexually mature salamanders that were actually A. rosaceum (Jones et al. species has been recently extirpated remain in the breeding pond) or 1988). from at least three of the 18 localities overwinter as larvae (Collins and Jones Collins et al. (1988) list 18 recorded described by Collins et al. (1988). 1987); James Collins, Arizona State sites for the Sonora tiger salamander. Disease and predation by introduced University, pers. comm. 1993). All of these sites are in the headwaters nonnative fish and bullfrogs (Rana The Sonora tiger salamander was of the Santa Cruz River, including sites catesbeiana) have been implicated in discovered in 1949 at the J.F. Jones in the San Rafael Valley and adjacent the extirpation of these populations Ranch stock tank in Parker Canyon, San foothills of the Patagonia and Huachuca (Collins and Jones 1987). Tiger Rafael Valley, Arizona (Reed 1951). Mountains and the Canelo Hills, in salamanders are also widely used as Based on color patterns of Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties, fishing bait in Arizona, and this use metamorphosed animals, Lowe (1954) Arizona. The taxon is currently extant at poses additional threats. Other described the Sonora tiger salamander 15 of these sites, where populations of subspecies of tiger salamander from southern Santa Cruz County, mature branchiates range from introduced into habitats of the Sonora Arizona, as the subspecies stebbinsi of approximately 50 to several hundred tiger salamander for bait propagation the broad-ranging tiger salamander (Collins and Jones 1987). Populations of could, through interbreeding, (Ambystoma tigrinum). However, again Sonora tiger salamanders also have been genetically swamp the distinct A. t. based on color patterns, Gehlbach (1965, discovered recently in Scotia Canyon on stebbinsi populations (Collins and Jones 1967) synonomized A. t. stebbinsi and the western slopes of the Huachuca 1987). Collecting Sonora tiger A. t. utahense (from the Rocky Mountains (Jeff Howland, Arizona Game salamanders for bait could also extirpate Mountains region) with A. t. nebulosum and Fish Department, pers. comm. 1993) or greatly reduce populations. (from northern Arizona and New and in Copper Canyon of the Huachuca Additional threats include habitat Mexico). Nevertheless, A. t. stebbinsi Mountains (Russell Duncan, destruction, reduced fitness resulting continued to be recognized in the Southwestern Field Biologists, pers. from low genetic heterozygosity, and the scientific literature (Jones et al. 1988). comm. 1993). Salamanders tentatively increased probability of stochastic Jones et al. (1988) found Lowe’s identified as Sonora tiger salamander extirpation characteristic of small description of color patterns in A. t. also have been found recently at populations. stebbinsi was only accurate for recently Portrero del Alamo at the Los Fresnos metamorphosed individuals and that cienega in the headwaters of the San Previous Federal Action older metamorphosed adults exhibited Pedro River, San Rafael Valley, Sonora, Federal government actions on either a distinctive reticulate pattern or Mexico (Sally Stefferud, U.S. Fish and Spiranthes delitescens, Lilaeopsis large light-colored blotches on a dark Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1993). In schaffneriana ssp. recurva, and Sonora background similar to A. t. mavortium, addition, a single terrestrial Sonora tiger tiger salamander began with their found in the central United States and salamander was found near Oak Spring inclusion in various Service notices of adjacent portions of Mexico. Starch gel in Copper Canyon of the Huachuca taxa under review for listing as electrophoresis of 21 presumptive gene Mountains (J. Howland, pers. comm. endangered or threatened species. loci of A. t. stebbinsi were compared 1993). This individual probably moved Sonora tiger salamander was included with gene loci of A. rosaceum (from from the newly discovered aquatic as a category 2 candidate in the first Sonora). A. t. mavortium, and A. t. population located approximately 1 km notice of review of vertebrate wildlife nebulosum (Jones et al. 1988). Based on (0.6 mi) to the southwest. All historic (December 30, 1982; 47 FR 58454), and this analysis, distinctive reticulate color and extant sites occur within 31 km (19 in subsequent notices published patterns, low heterozygosity, and mi) of Lochiel, Arizona. The Los September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958), and apparent geographic isolation, Fresnos and Oak Spring sites are springs January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554). Category 2 subspecific designation of A. t. stebbinsi or cienegas; all other sites are livestock candidates are those for which the was considered warranted by Collins tanks or impounded cienegas. Service has some evidence of and Jones (1987) and Jones et al. (1988). Historically, the Sonora tiger vulnerability, but for which there is Further analysis of mitochondrial DNA salamander probably inhabited springs insufficient scientific and commercial reaffirmed subspecific designation and and cienegas where permanent or nearly information to support a proposed rule suggested that A. t. stebbinsi may have permanent water allowed survival of to list them as threatened or been derived from hybridization mature branchiates. endangered. The most recent animal between A. t. nebulosum and A. t. Other potential localities have been notice, published November 15, 1994 mavortium (Collins et al. 1988). surveyed in or near the San Rafael (59 FR 58982), included the Sonora tiger The grassland community of the San Valley, but no other Sonora tiger salamander in category 1. Category 1 Rafael Valley and surrounding hillsides, salamander populations have been includes those taxa for which the where all extant populations of A. t. found. A. rosaceum and A. t. velasci Service has sufficient information to 16840 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules support proposed rules to list the like cienegas, streams, and rivers. Before surface water and the species that species as threatened or endangered. the early 1800s, indigenous peoples and depend on it. The North American Free Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva, missionaries used southern Arizona Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will likely then under the name L. recurva, was cienegas and riparian areas mostly for stimulate borderland development, with included as a category 2 candidate in subsistence enterprises, including wood a concurrent water demand increase the November 28, 1983 (45 FR 82480) cutting, agriculture (including livestock that could accelerate riparian area and September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526) grazing), and food and fiber harvesting. destruction and modification and plant notices. It was included under its In the early 1800s, fur trappers nearly increase threats to plants and animals present name as a category 1 candidate eliminated beaver from southern dependent on surface water, including in the February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), Arizona streams and rivers (Davis 1986) the species in this proposal. and September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144), significantly changing stream The largest area currently available for notices. morphology. In addition, human-caused recovery of Lilaeopsis is the San Pedro Spiranthes delitescens was included fires and trails may have significantly River along the perennial reach between for the first time in the September 30, altered riparian systems (Bahre 1991, Hereford and Fairbank. Whether or not 1993, plant notice. It was included in Dobyns 1981). the species can be recovered there that notice as a category 1 candidate. There was a significant human depends largely on the future presence On June 3, 1993, the Department of population increase in southern Arizona of perennial surface flows in the river the Interior, Washington, DC, received and northern Sonora in the early to and a natural unregulated hydrograph. three petitions, dated May 31, 1993, middle 1800s. New immigrants Perennial flow in the San Pedro River from a coalition of conservation substantially increased subsistence and between Hereford and Fairbank comes organizations (Suckling et al. 1993). The commercial livestock production and from a deep regional aquifer and a petitioners requested the listing of agriculture. By the late 1800s, many shallower floodplain (alluvial) aquifer Spiranthes, Lilaeopsis, and Sonora tiger southern Arizona watersheds were in (Arizona Department of Water salamander as poor condition primarily due to Resources 1991, Arizona Department of pursuant to the Endangered Species Act uncontrolled livestock grazing, mining, Water Resources 1994, Jackson et al. of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et hay harvesting, timber harvesting, and 1987, Vionnet and Maddock 1992). seq.). On December 14, 1993, the other management practices, such as fire Groundwater pumping from both the Service published a notice of three 90- suppression (Bahre 1991, Humphrey regional and floodplain aquifers has day findings that the petitions presented 1958, Martin 1975). The watershed occurred for some time and threatens substantial information indicating that degradation caused by these the base flow in the river (Jackson et al. listing these three species may be management practices led to 1987, University of Arizona San Pedro warranted, and requested public widespread erosion and channel Interdisciplinary Team 1991). Pumping comments and biological data on the entrenchment when above average from wells used primarily for status of the species (58 FR 65325). rainfall and flooding occurred in the late agriculture, particularly in the Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires 1800s (Bahre 1991, Bryan 1925, Dobyns Palominas and Hereford area, is having the Secretary to reach a final decision 1981, Hastings and Turner 1980, the largest current effect on the on any petition accepted for review Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Martin floodplain aquifer (Arizona Department within 12 months of its receipt. 1975, Sheridan 1986, Webb and of Water Resources 1994, Jackson et al. Publication of this proposed rule Betancourt 1992). These events 1987). A significant effect to the regional constitutes the warranted findings for contributed to long-term cienega and aquifer results from groundwater the petitioned actions. riparian habitat degradation throughout pumping from deeper wells that are the Summary of Factors Affecting the southern Arizona and northern Mexico. main sources of municipal, military, Physical evidence of cienega and other and industrial water for Sierra Vista, Species riparian area changes can be found in Fort Huachuca Military Reservation, Section 4 of the Endangered Species the black organic soils of the drainage and Huachuca City (Jackson et al. 1987, Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) cut banks in the San Rafael Valley Arizona Department of Water Resources promulgated to implement the listing (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984), San 1991 and 1994, Vionnet and Maddock provisions of the Act set forth the Pedro River (Hereford 1992), Black 1992). Groundwater pumping from this procedures for adding species to the Draw, and elsewhere. Although these deep regional aquifer has formed a cone Federal lists. A species may be changes took place nearly a century ago, of depression in the Sierra Vista/Fort determined to be an endangered or the ecosystem has not fully recovered Huachuca area intercepting mountain threatened species due to one or more and, in some areas, may never recover. front flows that would have contributed of the five factors described in section Wetland habitat degradation and loss to aquifer recharge (Arizona Department 4(a)(1). These factors and their continues today. Human activities such of Water Resources 1994, Jackson et al. application to Spiranthes delitescens as groundwater overdrafts, surface water 1987). Sheviak (Canelo Hills ladies’-tresses), diversions, impoundments, Groundwater pumping is expected to Lilaeopis schaffneriana spp. recurva channelization, improper livestock increase with human population (A.W. Hill) Affolter (Huachuca water grazing, chaining, agriculture, mining, growth. In anticipation of population umbel), and the Sonora tiger salamander road building, nonnative species growth, Fort Huachuca Military (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi Lowe) introductions, urbanization, wood Reservation has filed a claim for 10,087 are as follows: cutting, and recreation all contribute to acre-feet (A–F) per year of tributary A. The present or threatened riparian and cienega habitat loss and groundwater, more than three times the destruction, modification, or degradation in southern Arizona. The estimated 3,000 A–F currently used curtailment of its habitat or range. local and regional effects of these (Arizona Department of Water Humans have affected southwestern activities are expected to increase with Resources 1991). Even if water riparian systems over a period of several increasing human population. Each conservation measures are employed, thousand years. From prehistoric or threat is discussed in more detail below. groundwater drafts and the capture of historic times, human settlement in Growing water demand threatens the mountain front recharge are likely to southern Arizona has centered on oasis- existence of southern Arizona perennial adversely affect flows in the San Pedro Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16841

River. If base flow in the river continues channelization will accelerate the loss more than 100 years is larger and more to decrease, the future existence of the any/or degradation of Lilaeopsis and vigorous than a population growing at a riparian plant community is threatened Spiranthes habitat. site ungrazed since 1969 (McClaran and (Arizona Department of Water Dredging extirpated the Lilaeopsis Sundt 1992, Newman 1991). Sundt Resources 1994, Jackson et al. 1987). If population in House Pond. near the (pers. comm. in Newman 1991) has the groundwater drops below the extant population in Black Draw suggested differences in soil moisture elevation of the channel bed, the (Warren et al. 1991). The Lilaeopsis and topography between the two sites wetland plant (herb) association where population at Zinn Pond in St. David could explain the differences in Lilaeopsis is found will be the first plant near the San Pedro River was probably Spiranthes population size and vigor. association lost (Arizona Department of lost when the pond was dredged and Another explanation is that S. Water Resources 1994). deepened. This population was last delitescens, like many species in the Fort Huachuca Military Reservation documented in 1953 (Warren et al. genus, shows an affinity for habitats also relies on water from a well and 1991). with sparse herbaceous cover (McClaran springs in Garden Canyon (Arizona Livestock grazing potentially affects and Sundt 1992). Further research is Department of Water Resources 1991). Lilaeopsis at the ecosystem, community, needed, but the Service’s preliminary These diversions and pumping could population, and individual levels. Cattle conclusion is that well managed dewater the stream and damage or generally do not eat Lilaeopsis because livestock grazing does not harm destroy the Lilaeopsis population, the leaves are too close to the ground, Spiranthes populations. particularly during below-average but they can trample plants. Lilaeopsis Livestock often denude the vegetation rainfall periods. is capable of rapidly expanding in around stock tanks. The impact of this Flows in certain reaches of the Santa disturbed sites and could recover effect on Sonora tiger salamander Cruz River remained perennial until quickly from light trampling by populations is unknown (Collins and groundwater pumping lowered the extending undisturbed rhizomes Jones 1987), however, the Santa Cruz water table below the streambed. In (Warren et al. 1991). Light trampling long-toed salamander (Ambystoma 1908, the water table near Tucson was may also keep plant density low macrodactylum croceum), a related above the streambed, but from 1940– providing favorable Lilaeopsis endangered species from the central 1969, the water table was 6.0–21.0 m microsites. coast of California requires dense (20–70 ft) below the streambed (De la Poor livestock grazing management vegetation around breeding ponds and Torre 1970). Recovery of perennial flow can destabilize stream channels and surrounding uplands used by mature in the Santa Cruz River and of disturb cienega soils creating conditions metamorphs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Lilaeopsis near Tucson is unlikely, unfavorable for Lilaeopsis. which Service 1986). Aquatic, shoreline, and given the importance of groundwater for requires stable stream channels and the metropolitan area. cienegas. Such management can also nearby terrestrial vegetation cover at Groundwater pumping in Mexico change riparian community structure Sonora tiger salamander breeding ponds threatens Lilaeopsis populations on both and diversity causing a decline in likely conseals salamanders from sides of the border. South of the San watershed conditions. Poor livestock predators and provides a forage base for Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, grazing management is widely believed invertebrates that make up a portion of groundwater is being pumped to irrigate to be one of the most significant factors the salamander’s diet. In addition, farmlands in Mexico, and this pumping contributing to regional stream channel livestock probably trample metamorphs, threatens to dry up the springs and entrenchment in the late 1800s. eggs, and possibly brachiate streams that support several listed Poor livestock grazing management in salamanders. Although Sonora tiger endangered fish and a population of Mexico has severely degraded the salamanders persist in stock tanks Lilaeopsis. The large copper mine at riparian area along Black Draw and its heavily used by cattle, the effects of Cananea. Sonora, pumps groundwater watershed. The degraded habitat most grazing and trampling probably reduce for processing and support services. likely contributed to the severity of a the viability of these populations. Although little is known about how destructive scouring flood on San Sand and gravel mining along the San groundwater pumping near Cananea Bernardino Creek in 1988, which Pedro, Babocomari, and Santa Cruz may affect the spring at Ojo de Agua de extirpated two patches of Lilaeopsis. Rivers in the United States has Cananea, it is likely that overdrafts Overgrazing is occurring immediately occurred, and probably will continue would decrease springflow or dewater adjacent to the San Bernardino National unless regulated, although no mining the spring, extirpating the Lilaeopsis Wildlife Refuge and has destabilized the occurs within the San Pedro Riparian population. The spring at Ojo de Aqua channel of Black Draw. A headcut National Conservation Area. Sand and de Cananea is also the main municipal moving upstream threatens to gravel mining removes riparian water source for the town of Cananea. undermine the riparian area recovery vegetation and destabilizes the This water diversion, particularly if that has occurred since the refuge was ecosystem, which could cause increased, may adversely affect acquired. The refuge is implementing Spiranthes or Lilaeopsis habitat or Lilaeopsis. management to avoid the destructive population losses upstream or Sections of may southern Arizona downstream grazing effects. downstream from the mining. These rivers and streams have been Well managed livestock grazing and mines also pump groundwater for channelized for flood control, which Lilaeopsis are compatible. The fact that processing, and could locally affect disrupts natural channel dynamics and Lilaeopsis and its habitat occur in the groundwater reserves and perennial promotes the loss of riparian plant upper Santa Cruz River system in the stream base flows. Since 1983, communities. Channelization modifies San Rafael Valley attests to the good groundwater has been used to wash the natural hydrograph above and below land stewardship of the private sand and gravel mined near the the channelized section, which may landowner and of prior generations of Babocomari River. 0.8 km (0.5 mi) west adversely affect Lilaeopsis and the family. of highway 90 (Arizona Department of Spiranthes. Channelization will The effect of livestock grazing on Water Resources 1991). This activity continue to contribute to riparian Spiranthes is unclear. A Spiranthes could affect at least one Spiranthes habitat decline. Additional population growing at a site grazed for population. 16842 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Rural and urban development, road Los Fresnos cienega are Sonora tiger tanks could be abandoned or replaced building, chaining, agriculture, mining, salamanders, this would represent the by other watering facilities, such as and other land disturbances that only known natural cienega habitat windmills and troughs, which do not degrade the watershed can adversely occupied by an aquatic population of provide habitat for salamanders. affect Lilaeopsis. These activities are this species. B. Overutilization for commercial, common in the middle Santa Cruz The 15 extant aquatic Sonora tiger recreational, scientific, or educational basin, but much less prevalent in the salamander populations described by purposes. No commercial, recreational, San Pedro basin. For these reasons, Collins et al. (1988) and the new or educational uses for Lilaeopsis are conservation and recovery of the middle localities in Scotia Canyon and Copper known. A limited amount of scientific Santa Cruz River is unlikely, but may Canyon are all in stock tanks or collecting is likely, but is expected to still be possible for the upper San Pedro impounded cienegas constructed to pose no threat to the species. watershed, given region-wide planning collect runoff for livestock. Most of Although no specific cases of decisions favorable to good watershed these tanks likely date to the 1920s and commercial Spiranthes delitescens management. Increased development in 1930s when government subsidies were collecting have been documented, the upper San Pedro Valley, including available to offset construction costs commercial dealers, hobbyists, and the expansion of existing cities and (Brown 1985). These stock tanks, to other collectors are widely known to increased rural development, will likely some degree, have created and replaced significantly threaten some natural increase erosion and have other permanent or semi-permanent Sonora orchid populations. The commercial detrimental hydrologic effects. tiger salamander water sources. value of an orchid may increase after it There are few watershed-level Although the tanks provide relatively is listed as threatened or endangered. To disturbances in the upper Santa Cruz permanent aquatic habitats, current limit the possible adverse effects of and Black Draw drainages. There were management and the dynamic nature of illegal collecting, no specific Spiranthes irrigated fields in the Black Draw these artificial impoundments population locations are discussed in watershed, but these were abandoned compromise their ability to support this proposed rule, nor will critical when the Service acquired the area as a salamander populations in the long habitat be designated. No recreational or refuge. The fields are returning to term. The tanks collect silt from educational uses for Spiranthes are natural vegetation. The San Rafael upstream drainages and must be cleaned currently known. The small amount of Valley, which contains the upper Santa out periodically, typically with heavy scientific collecting that has occurred is Cruz River, is privately owned, well earth moving equipment. This regulated by the Arizona Native Plant managed, and currently undeveloped, maintenance is done when stock tanks Law (A.R.S. Chapter 7, Article 1). with few watershed disturbing are dry or nearly dry at an average Collecting Ambystoma in the San activities. However, there is potential interval of about 15 years (L. Dupee. Rafael Valley of Arizona is currently for commercial development in the Coronado National Forest, Sierra Vista, prohibited by Arizona Game and Fish upper Santa Cruz basin and resulting Arizona, pers. comm. 1993). As the Commission Order 41. Collins and Jones watershed effects. tanks dry out, aquatic salamanders (1987) reported an illegal Ambystoma Riparian areas and cienegas offer typically metamorphose and migrate collection from the San Rafael Valley oasis-like living and recreational from the pond. However, if water is and suspected that bait collectors and opportunities for residents of southern present during maintenance, some anglers often move salamanders among Arizona and northern Sonora. Riparian branchiate salamanders would likely be stock tanks. The extent of this activity areas and cienegas such as Sonoita lost due to excavation of the remaining and its threat to populations is Creek, the San Pedro River, Canelo Hills aquatic habitat. Any terrestrial unknown. However, all Sonora tiger cienega, and the perennial creeks of the metamorphs at the tank or in areas salamander populations are relatively Huachuca Mountains receive substantial disturbed would also be lost during small (Collins and Jones 1987). recreational visitation, and this is maintenance activities. Collecting may significantly reduce the expected to increase with the increasing Flooding and drought pose additional size of branchiate populations and southern Arizona population. While threats to stock tank populations of increase the chance of extirpations. well-managed recreation is unlikely to Sonora tiger salamanders. The tanks are C. Disease or predation. Neither extirpate Spiranthes or Lilaeopsis simple earthen impoundments without Lilaeopsis nor Spiranthes are known to populations, severe impacts in water control structures. Heavy flooding be threatened by disease or predation. unmanaged areas can compact soils, could erode and breach downstream Sonora tiger salamanders are destabilize steam banks, and decrease berms resulting in aquatic habitat loss. invariably eliminated through nonnative riparian plant density. Long-term drought could dry up the fish predation, particularly by sunfish Stream headcutting threatens the tanks. and catfish (Collins and Jones 1987). Lilaeopsis and presumed Sonora tiger Sonora tiger salamanders have Nonnative fish introductions were salamander populations at Los Fresnos persisted in stock tanks despite periodic implicated in three recent Sonora tiger cienega in Sonora. Erosion is occurring maintenance, flooding, and drought. If salamander extirpations from stock in Arroyo Los Fresnos downstream from the tanks refill soon after events that tanks (Collins et al. 1988). The effect of the cienega and the headcut is moving damage the aquatic habitat, they could native fishes on salamander populations upstream. The causes of this erosion are presumably be recolonized through is unknown, but some native species uncertain, but are presumably from terrestrial metamorph reproduction. may also prey on Sonora tiger livestock overgrazing and roads in this However, if a tank was dry for several salamanders. sparsely populated region. If the causes years and isolated from other Bullfrogs occur at some Sonora tiger of this erosion are left unchecked and salamander populations, insufficient salamander localities. These introduced headcutting continues, it is likely the terrestrial salamanders may remain and predators likely prey on salamander cienega habitat will be lost within the immigration from other populations eggs, larvae, and adults (Collins et al. foreseeable future. The loss of Los may be inadequate to recolonize the 1988). They may also be a vector for a Fresnos cienega may extirpate the stock tank. Potential grazing practice disease with symptoms similar to Lilaeopsis and Sonora tiger salamander changes also threaten aquatic Sonora Aeromonas infection (‘‘red leg’’) populations. If the salamanders at the tiger salamander populations. Stock (Marcus 1981) that killed all branchiate Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16843 salamanders at Huachuca Tank, Parker The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et ecosystem-wide management largely Canyon Tank #1, and Inez Tank in 1985 seq.), as amended in 1982, provides beyond Forest Service control. (Collins et al. 1988). The latter two tanks some protection for these three species. The National Environmental Policy were recolonized within the next two Under the Lacey Act it is prohibited to Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321– years, presumably by reproducing import, export, sell, receive, acquire, 4370a) requires Federal agencies to terrestrial metamorphs that survived the purchase, or engage in interstate or consider the environmental impacts of disease. However, no recolonization of foreign commerce in any species taken, their actions. NEPA requires Federal Huachuca Tank had occurred as of possessed, or sold in violation of any agencies to describe a proposed action, spring 1988 (Collins et al. 1988), and the law, treaty, or regulation of the United consider alternatives, identify and species was not observed there during States, any Tribal law, or any law or disclose potential environmental surveys in 1993 (J. Collins, pers. comm. regulation of any State. Interstate impacts of each alternative, and involve 1993). Nonnative fish were also present transport of protected species occurs the public in the decision-making at Huachuca Tank and likely despite the Lacey Act because process. It does not require Federal contributed to this extirpation. enforcement is difficult. agencies to select the alternative having Surveys conducted in 1993 and 1994 The Federal Land Policy and the least significant environmental revealed that nonnative fish and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 impacts. A Federal action agency may bullfrogs were recently introduced at U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest choose an action that will adversely several northern San Rafael Valley Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (16 affect listed or candidate species Sonora tiger salamander localities. U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) direct Federal provided these effects were known and Populations appear very low or are agencies to prepare programmatic-level identified in a NEPA document. extirpated at several of these localities, management plans to guide long-term All three species in this proposed rule inhabit wetlands that have varying particularly in the northwestern portion resource management decisions. The protection under section 404 of the of the valley. Additional survey work in goals of the Coronado National Forest Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1994 will clarify the status of these Plan (Plan) include a commitment to 1948 (33 U.S.C. 1251–1376), as populations. In contrast, populations in maintain viable populations of all native amended, and Federal Executive Orders the southeastern portion of the valley wildlife, fish, and plant species within 11988 (Floodplain Management) and appear large and robust (J. Collins, pers. the Forest’s jurisdiction through 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). comm. 1994). improved habitat management Cumulatively, these Federal regulations D. The inadequacy of existing (Coronado National Forest 1986a). The have been inadequate to halt population regulatory mechanisms. Many Federal Plan provides a list of rare plants and extirpations and habitat losses for the and State laws and regulations can animals found on the Forest, but gives three proposed species. protect these three species and their only a very general description of The Arizona Native Plant Law (A.R.S. habitat. However, Federal and State programmatic-level management Chapter 7, Article 1) protects Spiranthes agency discretion allowed under these guidelines and expected effort delitescens and Lilaeopsis schaffneriana laws still permits adverse affects on (Coronado National Forest 1986a). The spp. recurva as ‘‘highly safeguarded’’ listed and rare species. Adding Coronado National Forest is committed species. A permit from the Arizona Lilaeopsis, Spiranthes, and the Sonora to multiple use, and where the demands Department of Agriculture (ADA) must tiger salamander to the endangered of various interest groups conflict, the be obtained to legally collect these species list will help reduce adverse Forest must make decisions that species on public or private lands in affects to these species and will direct represent compromises among these Arizona. Permits may be issued for Federal agencies to work towards their interests (Coronado National Forest scientific and educational purposes recovery. 1986b). These types of compromises only. It is unlawful to destroy, dig up, None of the taxa in this proposed rule have sometimes resulted in adverse mutilate, collect, cut, harvest, or take are considered rare, threatened, or effects to listed endangered and any living ‘‘highly safeguarded’’ native endangered by the Mexican government threatened species. plant from private, State, or Federal (Secretario de Desarrollo Urbano Y The Plan’s endangered species land without a permit. However, private Ecologia 1991), nor do their habitats program includes participation in landowners and Federal and State receive special protection in Mexico. reaching recovery plan objectives for public agencies may clear land and On July 1, 1975, all species in the listed species, habitat coordination and destroy habitat after giving the ADA Orchid family (including Spiranthes surveys for listed species, and habitat sufficient notice to allow plant salvage. delitescens) were included in Appendix improvement (Coronado National Forest Despite the protections of the Arizona II of the Convention on International 1986b). After acknowledging budget Native Plant Law, legal and illegal Trade in Endangered Species of Wild constraints, the Plan states that studies damage and destruction of plants and Fauna and Flora (CITES). CITES is an of endangered plants will occur at habitat occur. international treaty established to approximately the 1980 funding level. Collecting Ambystoma in the San prevent international trade that may be The Coronado National Forest, which Rafael Valley is prohibited under detrimental to the survival of plants and manages habitat for 10 of the 18 extant Arizona Game and Fish Commission animals. A CITES export permit must be aquatic Sonora tiger salamander Order 41, except under special permit. issued by the exporting county before an populations, considers the Sonora tiger Nevertheless, illegal collecting occurs Appendix II species may be shipped. salamander a sensitive species and a (Collins and Jones 1987). The species is CITES permits may not be issued if the management indicator species, which listed by the State as endangered export will be detrimental to the receives special consideration in land (Arizona Game and Fish Department survival of the species or if the management decisions (Coronado 1988), however, this designation affords specimens were not legally acquired. National Forest 1986a). The ability of the species or its habitat no legal However, CITES does not itself regulate the Forest Service to manage the three protection. Transport and stocking of take or domestic trade. CITES provides species addressed here is limited live bullfrogs and fishing with live bait no protection to Lilaeopsis or the Sonora because many of the populations occur fish or Ambystoma within the range of tiger salamander. off Forest Service lands and/or require this salamander in Arizona is prohibited 16844 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules by Arizona Game and Fish Commission tall grass forms a dense monoculture, distance between aquatic populations of Orders 41 and R12–4–316, respectively. displacing less competitive native Sonora tiger salamander is more than 2 However, bullfrogs and nonnative fish plants. If continues to km (1.2 mi) in most cases, and much are present at several extant and historic spread, the Spiranthes population may greater distances separate many of the Sonora tiger salamander localities and be lost (Gori in litt. 1993). Cynodon sites. Thus, even if these salamanders introductions continue (Collins and dactylon (Bermuda grass) also displaces are capable of moving relatively long Jones 1987; James Collins, pers. comm. native riparian plants, including distances, some populations are 1994). Furthermore, abandonment, cottonwoods and willows that stabilize probably effectively geographically modification, or breaching of stock stream channels. Bermuda grass forms a isolated. Small isolated populations tanks is allowed on either private or thick sod in which many native plants have an increased probability of public lands. Such actions could are unable to establish. In certain extirpation (Wilcox and Murphy 1985). eliminate Sonora tiger salamander microsites, Bermuda grass may directly Once populations are extirpated, natural populations. compete with Lilaeopsis or Sprianthes. recolonization of these isolated habitats State of Arizona Executive Order There are no known effective methods may not occur (Frankel and Soule 1981). Number 89–16 (Streams and Riparian for eliminating Bermuda grass or The Service has carefully assessed the Resources), signed June 10, 1989, directs Johnson grass from natural plant best scientific and commercial State agencies to evaluate their actions communities. information available regarding the past, and implement changes, as appropriate, Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum present, and future threats faced by to allow for riparian resources (watercress) is another nonnative plant these taxa in determining to propose restoration. Implementation of this now abundant along perennial streams this rule. These three taxa are regulation may ameliorate adverse in Arizona. It is successful in disturbed vulnerable to one or more of the effects of some State actions on the areas and can form dense monocultures following threats—habitat degradation species in this rule. that can outcompete Lilaeopsis and loss through groundwater pumping, E. Other natural or manmade factors populations. livestock grazing, watershed affecting its continued existence. The limited number of populations degradation, flooding, drought, Arizona anglers and commercial bait and individuals threatens all three taxa urbanization, and recreation; nonnative dealers often introduce larval tiger in this proposed rule with demographic plant and vertebrate competition or salamanders into ponds for future bait and environmental stochastic predation; disease; and increased collecting (Lowe 1954, Collins et al. extinction. The restriction of these three extirpation chance due to low genetic 1988). Collins and Jones (1987) reported species to a relatively small area in variation in the Sonora tiger that tiger salamanders were illegally southeastern Arizona and adjacent salamander. The limited distributions of collected from the San Rafael Valley and Sonora also increases the chance that a these taxa and the small size of most transported to at least two tanks in the single environmental catastrophe, such extant populations makes them northern Patagonia Mountains. Bait as a severe tropical storm, could particularly vulnerable to extinction dealers or others moving Sonora tiger eliminate populations or cause from stochastic events. salamanders to new locations could extinction. This is of particular concern Because Spiranthes, Lilaeopsis, and establish new populations. Collins and for Sonora tiger salamanders inhabiting the Sonora tiger salamander are in Jones (1987) suggest that moving of stock tanks that could wash out during danger of extinction throughout all or salamanders has greatly influenced their a storm. Furthermore, Sonora tiger significant portions of their ranges, they present distribution in the San Rafael salamander genetic heterozygosity is the fit the Act’s definition of endangered. Valley. Moving could also transmit lowest reported for any salamander Based on the Service’s evaluation of the disease and cause unintentional fish or (Jones et al. 1988). Low heterozygosity status and threats facing these species, bullfrog introductions, which would indicates low genetic variation, which the preferred action is to propose extirpate extant populations. increases demographic stochasticity and Spiranthes, Lilaeopsis, and the Sonora Moving poses an additional threat. A. the chance of local extirpations (Shafer tiger salamander as endangered. The t. mavortium is common in Arizona 1990). Service believes that designation of stock tanks and ponds to the east of the Finding of a Sonora tiger salamander critical habitat is prudent for the San Rafael Valley. Bait dealers and recently at Oak Spring, approximately Lilaeopsis and the Sonora tiger anglers introduced many of these 1.0 km (0.6 mi) from the nearest known salamander, but finds that critical populations (Collins 1981, Collins and aquatic population, provides evidence habitat is not now determinable for Jones 1987). If A. t. mavortium is these animals are capable of at least that these two species. Critical habitat introduced into Sonora tiger salamander distance of overland dispersal. Seasonal designation would not be prudent for localities, populations could be lost due movement to and from breeding ponds the Spiranthes. The rationales for these to genetic swamping by interbreeding of is a common phenomenon in decisions are discussed in the following the two subspecies. amphibians. Distances of these seasonal section of this proposal. Two populations of Lilaeopsis have movements are generally less than 0.5 been lost due to unknown causes. km (0.3 mi), although movements of Critical Habitat Despite the presence of suitable habitat, more than 11 km (7 mi) have been Critical habitat is defined in Section no plans have been observed at Monkey documented for the red-bellied newt 3 of the Act as—(i) The specific areas Spring near Sonita Creek since 1965. (Taricha rivularis) (Zug 1993). The within the geographic area occupied by Lilaeopsis collected in 1958 along the ability of Sonora tiger salamanders to a species, at the time it is listed in San Pedro River near St. David, but no move between populations is unknown, accordance with the Act, on which are longer exists there, nor is their suitable but arid grassland, savanna, or pine-oak found those physical or biological habitat. woodland separates all populations and features (I) essential to the conservation Aggressive nonnative plants disrupt movement through these relatively dry of the species and (II) that may require the native riparian plant community. landscapes is probably limited. special management considerations or The nonnative Sorghum halepense Movement would be most likely during protection and; (ii) specific areas (Johnson grass) is invading one storms or where wet drainages are outside the geographic area occupied by Spiranthes site (Gori in litt. 1993). This available as movement corridors. The a species at the time it is listed, upon Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16845 a determination that such areas are remote Arizona localities, collecting agencies to confer with the Service on essential for the conservation of the these other subspecies is legal, and State any action that is likely to jeopardize species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use law prohibits collecting and stocking the continued existence of a species of all methods and procedures needed salamanders in the range of the Sonora proposed for listing or result in to bring the species to the point at tiger salamander. Thus, publication of destruction or adverse modification of which listing under the Act is no longer critical habitat localities is unlikely to proposed critical habitat. If a species is necessary. substantially increase threats to the listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as Sonora tiger salamander. The Service requires Federal agencies to ensure that amended, and implementing regulations finds the benefits of designating critical activities they authorize, fund, or carry (50 CFR 242.12) require that, to the habitat outweigh any risk of increased out are not likely to jeopardize the maximum extent prudent and collecting and determines that continued existence of the species or determinable, the Secretary designate designation of critical habitat is prudent destroy or adversely modify its critical critical habitat at the time a species is for the Sonora tiger salamander. habitat. If a Federal action may affect a determined to be endangered or Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the listed species or its critical habitat, the threatened. The Service finds that Service to consider economic and other responsible Federal agency must enter designation of critical habitat is not impacts of designating a particular area into formal consultation with the prudent for Spiranthes delitescens at as critical habitat. Information Service. Two of the taxa in this this time. Service regulations (50 CFR concerning probable impacts that would proposal, the Sonora tiger salamander 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of be associated with designation of and Lilaeopsis, occur on the Coronado critical habitat is not prudent when one critical habitat for these two species has National Forest. The latter species also or both of the following situations not yet been fully assessed or analyzed. occurs on the Fort Huachuca Military exist—(1) the species is threatened by Efforts aimed at gathering and analyzing Reservation managed by the Department taking or other human activity, and such information are currently of Defense. identification of critical habitat can be underway, but have not been Examples of Federal actions that may expected to increase the degree of threat completed. Regulations at 50 CFR affect the three species in this proposal to the species, or (2) such designation of 424.12(a)(2)(i) specify that critical include—issuing mining permits, critical habitat would not be beneficial habitat is not determinable when managing recreation, road construction, to the species. ‘‘Information sufficient to perform livestock grazing, granting right-of-ways, As discussed under Factor B in the required analyses of the impacts of the stock tank development and ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the designation is lacking * * *’’ The maintenance, and military activities. Species,’’ Spiranthes is threatened by Service therefore finds that critical These and other Federal actions would collecting. If it is listed, collecting of habitat for the Huachuca water umbel require formal section 7 consultation if Spiranthes would be prohibited under and the Sonora tiger salamander is not the action agency determines that the the Act in cases of (1) removal and now determinable. When information proposed action may affect listed reduction to possession from lands becomes available and the review has species. Development on private or under Federal jurisdiction, or malicious been completed, the Service intends to State lands requiring permits from damage or destruction on such lands; propose designation of critical habitat Federal agencies, such as 404 permits and (2) removal, cutting, digging up, or for both species to the maximum extent from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, damaging or destroying Spiranthes in prudent. would also be subject to the section 7 knowing violation of any State law or consultation process. Private actions Available Conservation Measures regulation, including State criminal that are not Federally funded or trespass law. Such provisions are Conservation measures provided to permitted would require a section difficult to enforce, and publication of species listed as endangered or 10(a)(1)(B) permit if implementation critical habitat descriptions and maps threatened under the Act include would result in incidental take of would make Spiranthes more recognition, recovery actions, Sonora tiger salamander. vulnerable and increase enforcement requirements for Federal protection, and The Act and its implementing problems. All involved parties and prohibitions against certain practices. regulations set forth a series of general principal landowners are aware of the Recognition through listing encourages prohibitions and exceptions that apply location and importance of protecting and results in conservation actions by to all endangered plants. All trade this species’ habitat. Habitat protection Federal, State, and private agencies, prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, will be addressed through the recovery groups, and individuals. the Act implemented by 50 CFR 17.61, apply. process and through the Section 7 provides for possible land acquisition These prohibitions, in part, make it provisions of the Act. Therefore it and cooperation with the States and illegal for any person subject to the would not now be prudent to determine requires that recovery actions be carried jurisdiction of the United States to critical habitat for Spiranthes out for all listed species. The protection import or export, transport in interstate delitescens. required of Federal agencies and the or foreign commerce in the course of a Lilaeopsis is not threatened by prohibitions against certain activities commercial activity, sell or offer for sale collecting and the Service knows of no involving listed species are discussed, listed species in interstate or foreign circumstance where the species is in part, below. commerce, or to remove and reduce the threatened by vandalism. Therefore, Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, species to possession from areas under critical habitat designation is prudent requires Federal agencies to evaluate Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for for this species. their actions with respect to any species plants listed as endangered, the Act Salamander collecting by bait dealers that is proposed or listed as endangered prohibits the malicious damage or and anglers has been identified as a or threatened and with respect to its destruction on areas under Federal Sonora tiger salamander threat and critical habitat, if any is being jurisdiction and the removal, cutting publication of salamander localities rule designated. Regulations implementing digging up, or damaging or destroying of could facilitate collecting. However, this interagency cooperation provision such plants in knowing violation of any other subspecies of A. tigrinum are of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part State law or regulation, including State readily available from numerous less 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal criminal trespass law. Certain 16846 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules exceptions apply to agents of the (telephone 505/766–3972; facsimile Policy Act of 1969, need not be Service and State conservation agencies. 505/766–8063). prepared in connection with regulations The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Public Comments Solicited also provide for the issuance of permits Endangered Species Act of 1973, as to carry out otherwise prohibited The Service intends that any final amended. A notice outlining the activities involving endangered plants action resulting from this proposal will Service’s reasons for this determination under certain circumstances. Such be as accurate and as effective as was published in the Federal Register permits are available for scientific possible. Therefore, comments or on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). purposes and to enhance the suggestions from the public, other References Cited propagation or survival of the species. It concerned governmental agencies, the is anticipated that few trade permits scientific community, industry, or any A complete list of all references cited would ever be sought or issued for other interested party concerning this herein, as well as others, is available Lilaeopsis or Spiranthes because these proposed rule are hereby solicited. upon request from the Arizona species are not common in cultivation Comments particularly are sought Ecological Services State Office (see or in the wild. concerning. ADDRESSES section). The Act and implementing (1) Biological, commercial trade, or Authors regulations set forth a series of general other relevant data concerning any prohibitions and exceptions that apply threat (or lack thereof) to these species; The primary authors of this proposed (2) The location of any additional to all endangered wildlife. The rule are Susan Rutman, formerly of the populations of these species and the prohibitions codified at 50 CFR 17.21, Service’s Arizona Ecological Services reasons why any habitat should or in part, make it illegal for any person State Office, and Jim Rorabaugh (see should not be determined to be critical subject to the jurisdiction of the United ADDRESSES section). habitat as provided by section 4 of the States to take (includes harass, harm, Act; List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, (3) Additional information concerning capture or collect; or to attempt any of the range, distribution, and population Endangered and threatened species, these), import or export, ship in size of these species; Exports, Imports, Reporting and interstate commerce in the course of a (4) Current or planned activities in the recordkeeping requirements, commercial activity, or sell or offer for subject areas and their possible impacts Transportation. sale in interstate or foreign commerce on these species; and Proposed Regulation Promulgation any listed species. It also is illegal to Final promulgation of regulations on possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or these species will take into Accordingly, the Service hereby ship any such wildlife that has been consideration the comments and any proposes to amend part 17, subchapter taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply additional information received by the B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of to agents of the Service and State Service, and such communications may Federal Regulations, as set forth below: conservation agencies. lead to a final regulation that differs Permits may be issued to carry out from this proposal. PART 17Ð[AMENDED] otherwise prohibited activities The Endangered Species Act provides involving endangered wildlife under 1. The authority citation for part 17 for one or more public hearings on this continues to read as follows: certain circumstances. Regulations proposal, if requested. Request must be governing permits are codified at 50 received within 45 days of the date of Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such permits are publication of the proposal in the 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted. available for scientific purposes, to Federal Register. Such requests must be enhance the propagation or survival of made in writing and addressed to the 2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by the species, and/or for incidental take in State Supervisor (see ADDRESSES adding the following in alphabetical the course of otherwise lawful activities. section). order, under ‘‘Amphibians,’’ to the List Requests for copies of the regulations of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife National Environmental Policy Act on listed plants and wildlife and to read as follows: inquiries about prohibitions and permits The Fish and Wildlife Service has may be addressed to U.S. Fish and determined that Environmental § 17.11 Endangered and threatened Wildlife Service. Branch of Endangered Assessments and Environmental Impact wildlife. Species/Permits, P.O. Box 1306, Statements, as defined under the * * * * * Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 authority of the National Environmental (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

******* AMPHIBIANS

******* Salamander, Sonora Ambystoma tigrinum U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico Entire ...... E NA NA tiger. stebbinsi.

******* Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16847

3. Section 17.12(h) is amended by Endangered and Threatened Plants to § 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants. adding the following two species in read as follows: * * * * * alphabetical order to the List of (h) * * *

Species Historic range Family Status When listed Critical Special Scientific name Common name habitat rules

FLOWERING PLANTS

******* Lilaeopsis Huachuca water U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico Apiaceae ...... E NA NA schaffneriana ssp. umbel. recurva.

******* Spiranthes Canelo Hills ladies'- U.S.A. (AZ) ...... ...... E NA NA delitescens. tresses.

*******

Dated: March 29, 1995. Mollie H. Beattie, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 95–8176 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310±55±M