5150 ‘Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 1987 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACt: Agmstis sp., tindernia monticola, Mr. Dennis 8. Jordan at the above Cyperus gmnitophilus, Andmpogon Flsh and Wildlife Service address (601/9654900 or F’FS496-4990). scoporius, and Seloginello tortipilo 50 CFR Part 17 SUPPLEMENlARY INFORMATION: [Garris 1986, Krall983, Rayner 1986). Two Federal candidate plant species Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Background (Sedum pusillum and Dmbo oprica) and Plants; Proposed Endangered or Amphianthus pusillus, lsoetes occur with Amphianthus and Isoetes Threatened Status for Three Granlte melonospom, and Isoetes tegetiformans tegetiformans at several sites in eastern Outcrop Plants are endemic to granite outcrops in the Georgia. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Piedmont physiogrephic region of the A discussion of the three species Interior. Southeastern U.S. Amphionthus is. proposed for listing herein fOllOWB: known from Alabama, Georgia, and Amphianthus pusillus is a diminutive ACTION: Proposed rule. South Carolina. Isoetes melanospora fibrous-rooted annual. It has both floating and submerged leaves. The SUMMARY: The Service proposes to and Isoetes tegetiformons occur only in determine two plants, Zsoetes Georgia. These three taxa are the most submerged leaves are lanceolate. less mefonospom (black-spored quillwort) restricted of the granite outcrop species than 1 centimeter (cm) (0.4 inch) in (Bridges 1986a). Granite outcrops length and appear to be arranged in a and isoetes tegetiformons (mat-forming basal rosette. The floating leaves are quillwort), to be endangered species superficially resemble one another but may differ geologically as igneous, ovate, 4-8 millimeters [mm) (O.lm.32 under the authority contained in the inch) long, 3-5 mm (0.12-0.20 inch) wide, Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, quartzitic, gneissic or porphyritic granite (Lester 1938, McVaugh 1943, Wharton oppositely arranged and are attached to as amended. The Service proposes the stem near the submerged leaves by threatened status for one plant, 1978). Outcrop supporting populations of all three taxa occur as large isolated long, delicate stems. Ite flowers are Amphianthus pusillus (little domes or as gently rolling “flatrocks.” white, 4-8 mm (O.lRO.20 inch) in length amphianthus). These three species are and are borne in the axils of both types restricted to granite outcrops in the These communities are believed to have long served as active sites for of leaves. Floating flowers are Piedmont physiographic region in the chasmogamous (open) and submerged Southeast and all have their center of speciation. as evidenced by a high degree of endemism. Speciation is Rowers are cleistogamous [closed) distribution in Georgia. lsoetes accelerated on outcrops due to the except when exposed to air (lungsford melanosporo is presently known from scattered distribution of rock exposures 1938, Rayner 1988). Amphionthus five sites in Georgia: Isoetes and the harsh environmental conditions usually flowers in March or April tegetifarmans is extant at ten sites in (high light intensities, extreme wet/dry (depending upon environmental Georgia; and Amphionthus posillus periods) to which the species have conditions] and produces a capsule, 2-3 occurs at 39 sites in Georgia, three sites become adapted (Murdy 1968). mm (0.08-0.12 inch] broad and 1 mm in Alabama, and three sites in South Amphionthus pusillus. Isoetes (0.04 inch] long. Amphianthus is Carolina. However, only one population melanospora. and Isoetes tegetiformans ephemeral, usually completing its life of Isoetes melanospora, two populations typically occur in shallow flat-bottomed cycle in a 3-to-4 week period (Garris of isoetes tegetiformans, and six pools found on the crest and flattened 1980; Krall983: Rayner 1986). populations of Amphianthus pusillus are slopes of unquarried outcrops (Lester This species was first collected by large and vigorous. These species are 1938, Garris 1980, Rury 1985, Rayner M.C. Leavenworth in 1838 in Newton jeopardized by the continuing 1986). Such pools have been referred to County, Georgia (present-day Rockdale destruction of granite outcrops from as vernal pools (Kral1983, Rayner 1986), County) and later described by John quarry operations, and habitat weathering pits (Bake 1970). depression Torrey in 1839 (Pennell 1935). modification from dumping, their pits (Murdy 1968) and solution pits Amphionthus pusillus is thought to e a inclusion in pasture, and heavy (Lester 1938, McVaugh 1943) and are relict species, a monotypic genus of recreational use [especially off-road rare in even the best localities. These doubtful placement in the family vehicle (ORV) use]. All three species pools range in size from 0.3 square meter Scrophulariaceae (Pennell 1935, have lost populations through such to 10 square meters; the vast majority of McVaugh 1943, Murdy 1968). It is most activities. This proposed rule, if made these pools range from 0.5-l meter similar in flower morphology to Gmtiolo final, will extend the Act’s protection to square. These pools retain water for and Eacopa but differs from all other these three granite outcrop endemics. several weeks following heavy rains southeastern Scrophulariacease by its The Service seeks data and comments and completely dry out with summer dimophic leaves and flowers (Pennell from the public on this proposed rule. droughts. They are usually several 1935, Kral1983). DATES: Comments from all interested meters in diameter and are circular or Optimal habitat for Amphionthus has parties must be received by .4pril 20, irregularly-shaped due to the coalescene been consistently described as pools 1987. Public hearing requests must be of adjacent pools (Lunsford 1938, surrounded by a rock rim several received by April 61987. McVaugh 1943). For species occur centimeters in height and sandy-silty ADDRESSES: Comments and materials directly with these taxa due to the soils 2-5 cm (O&2.0 inches) in depth concerning this proposal should be sent aquatic nature of the microhabitat with a low organic matter content to the Endangered Species Field Station, (McVaugh 1943). Amphianthus is the [Lunsford 1938, McVaugh 1943, Garris U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson most common associate of Zsoetes 1980, Miller 1985, Rayner 1988). Most Mall Office Center, Suite 316, 300 melonospora and lsoetes tegetiformans. populations occur in such typical pools; Woodrow Wilson Avenue, Jackson, Other plants which may occur in and however, Garris (1980) and Rayner Mississippi 39213. Comments and around the pools include lichens (1986) have reported several populations materials received will be available for (Cladonio sp.), Diomorpha smoliii, from atypical habitats. Most of these public inspection, by appointment, Arenario unifloro, Arenoria glabro, atypical pools lacked on intact rim, during normal business hours at the Polytrichum commune, Isoetes others were in ecotonal zones or above address. piedmontana, Juncus georgianus, seepage areas. Federal Register I Vol. 52, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 1987 / Proposed Rules 5151

Amphicmthus primarily occurs in (Rayner 1981.1988). According to Burbanck and Platt 1984, Matthews and Georgia with peripheral populations in Rayner (1986), during the 1983 or 1984 Murdy 1969, Allison, per%. comm. 1986). Alabama and South Carolina. Status growing season, six pools supported Currently, it is thought extant at only surveys have been conducted extensive populations (~200 plants) and five sites in Georgia (De Kalb, Rockdale. throughout its range by Miller (1985) in six had limited populations (~25 plants) and Gwinnett Counties) due to a 54% Alabama, Garr$ (1980) in Georgia, and of Amphianthus. loss of Georgia populations from habitat Rayner (1981,198s) in South Carolina, Isoetes melanospom was discovered destruction. Its status at the South Extensive surveys of granite outcrops in by Canby (1869) on Stone Mountain in Carolina site is unknown since it has not the Piedmont have been conducted by J. De Kalb County, Georgia, and later been observed there since its collection Allison since the 1970’s (University of described by Englemann (1877). in 1969 (Boom 1979, Rayner, pers. comm. Georgia, pers. comm. 1986). Distinguishing characters include a 1986). The actual number of individual complete velum coverage, dark Isoetes melonospom occurs with plants is difficult to determine since tuberculate megaspores and short [2-7 Amphiunthus at four of its six extant Amphicmthus is an ephermeral annual cm (0.8-2.8 inches long], spiraled leaves sites in typical habitat as described for whose population size and vigor is (Boom 1979,1982). Immature plants of Amphiunthus. At the sixth site, Isoetes dependent upon weather conditions Isoetes melanospom may have melanospora is located in several [sufficient moisture). This is further distichous leaves (Boom 1979, Rury remnant quarry pools. The largest complicated by a seed bank of 1978). If frequently hybridizes with population of Isoetes melanospom undertermined size and dormancy Isoetes piedmontana, a more common comprises plants in an estimated 12 period (Rayner 1986). granite outcfop quillwort, which has an pools. Other Georgia populations are Amphianfhus was first reported from incomplete velum coverage, white confined to one to five pools each. Alabama by Harper (1939) in Randolph megaspores and longer leaves [7-15 cm Isoetes tegetiformons is perhaps the County. However, this population has (2.5-5.9 inches long], in habitats which most distincitive species in this genus not been relocated in years and is are ecologically intermediate between (Boom 1982). A detailed description of believed extirpated. Currently, there are the two species’ typical habitats. its morphology and anatomy is given by three extent populations in two counties Hybrids are intermediate in the above Rury (1978). Distinguishing characters of the State [Randolph and Chambers). characters (Matthews and Murdy 1969. include its distichous, mat-forming All three areas contain limited Boom 1982). Rury (1978) proposed that growth habit (plants are populations of Amphianthus. Two of the Isoetes melanospom represented a “rhizomatously” connected), non- sites have fewer than SOplants confined arrested developmental stage of one dichotomizing roots, and formation of to a single vernal pool, while the third polymorphic species encompassing numberous. cauline, adventious buds population consists of several hundred isoetes melanospora and Isoetes (Rury 1978, Boom 1979.1982). Individual plants in two to three pools (Miller 1985, piedmontana. According to Boom (1978, plants are most similar to distichous Al!ison pers. ~0111111.1986). 1982), such confusion regarding Isoetes plants of Isoetes melanospom with Amphiunthus is historically known melanospomk taxonomic status stems respect to plant size, leaf arrangement from 50 sites in Georgia (McVaugh and from the above mentioned hybridization and reproductive features (Rury 1978). Pyron 1937. Lunsford 1938, McVaugh of the two Isoetes species and 1943, Burbanck and Platt 1964); however Isoetes tegetiformans was described subsequent introgression. C. Taylor and by Rury (1978) from material he 11 of these populations have been N. Luebke (Milwaukee Public Museum, destroyed (Garris 1980; Allison pers. collected at Heggie’s Rock Preserve in pers. comm. 19861maintain that Zsoetes Columbia County, Georgia, from a single comm. 1986: Jones, University of Georgia melanospora and Isoetes piedmontana pers. comm., 1986). Currently, 39 are distinct species. Both species have vernal pool. Since then, searches of over populations are thought extant; with 74% 120 granite outcrops by J. Allison have maintained their morphological resulted in only 10 additional locations of these are “limited” populations (I-S distinctiveness while growing in uniform pools) and 45% of these contain conditions for the last six years, and (Rury 1985, Allison, pers. comm. 1988). Amphionthus in a single vernal pool; preliminary electrophoretic data Populations occur in four Georgia 13% are “moderate” populations (6-14 determined the two Isoetes to have counties (Columbia, Hancock, Greene pools]: and 13% are “extensive” distinct enzyme profiles. Research by and Putnam) and are confined to population (15-25 pools). Even though Boom (1980] and Luebke (pers. comm. porphyritic granite outcrops. Today, Amphianthus is known from 17 counties, 1986) demonstrates that reproductive Isoetes tegetiformans is though extant at 12 of these counties (Rockdale, Walton, barriers are weak in Isoetes and all but one site (Allison, pers. comm. Douglas, Butts, Putnam, Oglethorpe, interspecific hybrids are produced 1986, Rury 1986). Seventy percent of the Harris, Meriwether, Henry, Pike, readily. Isoetes melanospom has been extant sites have only one or two pools Newton, Gwinnett) support only a maintained as a distinct taxon in all with Isoetes tegetiformans. At the limited population of Amphiunthus with monographic treatments of the genus remaining sites, it has been observed in eight of these county records confined to (Pfeiffer 1922, Reed 1965, Boom 1979. four to eight pools. Individual pools may a single site. The remaining counties 1982). Although Evans (1978) contain very few genetic individuals support one to two extensive synonymized Isoetes melanospora in since Isoetes tegetiformons is a colony- populations of Amphianthus (De Kalb, The Flom of The Carolinas, he now forming species [Bridges 1988a). Greene, Heard, Hancock, and states that Isoetes melanospom will be Many of the sites harboring Columbia). The number of individuals in maintained as a distinct taxon in his populations of these three granite the pools range from as few as a dozen treatment of the pteridophytes for the outcrop endemics have been destroyed to several thousand, with most pools upcoming “Vascular Flora of the or adversely impacted through containing several hundred plants when Southeastern States” (Evans, University quarrying, euthrophication from cattle, rainfall is adequate. of Tennessee, pers. comm. 1986). ORV’s, trash dumping, and various Amphianfhus occurs at three sites in Isoetes melanospora is historically forms of vandalism (Garris 1980, Miller South Carolina, with seven pools in known from 12 sites in central Georgia 1985, Rayner 1986). Lancaster County, one in Saluda and one site in South Carolina (Johnson Most populations are on privately- County, and four in York County 1938, KcVaugh 1943, Lammers 1956, owned lands, including one site 5152 Federal Register 1 Vol. 52, No. 33 1 Thursday, February 19, 1987 / Proposed Rules managed by the Nature Conservancy. tegetiformans as a Category-2 species. distributions). The major threat to these Four sites are located on public lands, All three species were included in species is the destruction and adverse including one owned by the State of Category 2 in the September 27.1965, modification of their habitat. Georgia and administered by the Stone revised notice of review of plants (50 FR Populations of all three taxa have been Mountain Memorial Association, two 39526). Status survey reports compiled lost through quarrying (38% for Isoetes owned by De Kalb Country, Georgia, by Garris (1980), Miller (1985) and melanospom, 17%for Amphianthus, 9% and one by the State of South Carolina Rayner (1986) as well as extensive field for Isoetes tegetiformans) and the fate of (South Carolina Wildlife and Marine searches by Allison (pers. comm. 1966), several extent populations is tenuous Resources Department]. and pertinent literature (see “References since several areas are active quarry Federal actions involving these Cited’ below), now support all three sites. Georgia is the worlds largest species began with section 12 of the species’ being reelevated to Category 1 granite producer [ Wharton 1978). so the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which and listing as endangered or threatened. destruction of outcrops from quarrying directed the Secretary of the The date demonstrated low numbers of is expected to continue. Quarrying Smithsonian Institution to prepare a plants and contiuning threats to the companies owned 17.4% of those granite report on those plants considered to be species. outcrops investigated for Amphiantus in endangered, threatened, or extinct. This Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Georgia (Garris 1980). report, designated as House Document Species Act, as amended in 1962, Granite outcrops are popular No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on requires the Secretary to make findings recreational sites and unfortunately January 9,1975. On July 1,1975, the on certain pending petitions within 12 such attention and overuse have Service published a notice in the Federal months of their receipt. Section 2(b)(l) of resulted in damage to the geologic Register (46 FR 27823) of its acceptance the 1962 amendments further requires structures and vegetation (Garris 1980). of the report on the Smithsonian that all petitions pending on October 13, Many of the pools supporting Institution as a petition within the 1982, be treated as having been newly populations of these three taxa have context of section 4(c)(2), now section submitted on that date. This was the been directly damaged by vehicular 4(b)(3)(A), of the Act and of its intention case for Isoetes melanospora and traffic. Vehicular traffic during these thereby to review the status of those Amphianthus pusilius because the 1975 species’ growing season posed a serious plants. On June 161976, the Service Smithsonian report had been accepted threat by uprooting/crushing live plants, published a proposed rule in the Federil as a petition. On October 13,1983. hastening the erosion of the pools’ rims Register (41 FR 24523) to determine October 12.1984, October 11,1985, and and displacing soil from the pools approximately 1,766 vascular plant October 10,1986, the Service found that (Bridges 1986a, Rayner 1966). ORV’s species to be endangered species the petitioned listing of these species have decreased the vigor of all the South pursuant to section 4 of the Act. was warranted, but that listing this Carolina Amphianthus populations Amphianthus pusillus and Isoetes species was precluded due to other (Rayner 1986) and destroyed one melanospom were included in the higher priority listing actions. Alabama population (Miller 1985). Pools Smithsonian petition and the 1976 Publication of the present proposal have been further impacted by such proposal. General comments received in constitutes the next l-year finding vandalistic activities as fire building and relation to the 1976 pmposal were required on or before October 13,1986, littering [Rayner 1986, Garris 1986). summarized in an April 26.1976, Federal for these three species which are now Rearrangement of stones in two pools among the highest priority species for has caused a decline in two populations Register publication (43 FR 17999). listing. The Endangered Species Act of Amphianthus and Zsoetes Amendments of 1978 required that all Summary of Factors Affecting the melanospora. proposals over 2 years old be Species Granite outcrops are often enclosed in withdrawn. A l-year grace period was Section 4[a)[l) of the Endangered pasture. A concentration of grazing given to proposals already over 2 years Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and animals on these areas has caused old. In the December 10,1979, Federal regulations [50 CFR Part 424) damage to vernal pool vegetation Register (44 FR X1796),the Service promulgated to implement the listing through trampling and added nutrients published a notice of withdrawal of the provisions of the Act set forth the to the water, which favors the growth of June 16,1976, proposal, along with four procedures for adding species to the more competitive aquatics (Garris 1980, other proposals that had expired. On Federal Lists. A species may be Bridges 1986b). Such eutrophication of December 15.1980, the Service determined to be an endangered or vernal pools has eliminated published a revised notice of review for threatened species due to one or more of Amphianthus from several pools at one native plants in the Federal Register [45 the five factors described in section site and caused the decline of FR 62460); Isoetes meianospora was 4[a)(l). These factors and their Amphianthus and Zsoetes tegetiformans included as a Category-2 species application to Amphianthuspusillus at a second area. (species for which data in the Service’s Torrey (little amphianthus). Isoetes Many of the smaller outcrops are used possession indicate listing is probably melanospora Rnglemann (black-spored as local dumps or for storing equipment, appropriate, but for which additional quillwort), and Isoetes tegetiformans and such adverse land use has biological information is needed to Rury (mat-forming quillwort) are as destroyed two populations of support a proposed rule): Isoetes follows: Amphianthus and one population of tegetiformans and Amphianthus pusillus Isoetes melanospora in Georgia (Garris were included as Category-l species A. The Present of Threatened 1980, Allison, pers. comm. 1986). (species for which data in the Service’s Destruction, Modification. or Flatrocks in the Southeast are being possession indicate listing is Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range. examined as possible repositories for warranted). On November 26,1963, the Amphianthus pusillus. Zsoetes nuclear waste and this poses a potential Service published in the Federal tegetiformans, and Isoetes melanospora threat to their habitat (Rayner 1986). Register (48 FR 53646) a supplement to are restricted to granite outcrops in the Long term monitoring of all three taxa the 1989 notice or review. This Piedmont physiographic region (see should be initiated in order to measure supplement treated Isoetes “Background’ section for specific fluctuations in population size and vigor. Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 33 1 Thursday, February 19, 1987 / Proposed Rules 5153

Such data would be helpful in (see “Available Conservation tegetiformans and Isoetes melanospora determining the stability of populations Measures” below), and encourage active as endangered species and to list are related to weather conditions and management for these species. Amphianthus pusillus as a threatened distrubance (Bridges 1988a, Rayner species. Isoetes melanospom has been 1966). E. Other Natuml or Manmade Factors extirpated over most of its historic range Affecting its Continued Existence (54% of populations destroyed). B. Overutilization for Commercial, These taxa are rare and vulnerable Furthermore, populations at four of the Recreational, Scientific or Educational due to the limited amount of potential five remaining sites are confined to five Purposes habitat and specialized microhabitat or fewer pools and have significantly Taking for these purposes may pose a requirements. Many of the populations decreased in numbers and vigor at threat to these species, especially consist of small numbers of individuals several of these areas. Zsoetes Isoetes melanospom and Isaetes confined to only one or two pools (see tegetiformans is restricted to a tegetiformans, which are extremely “Background” section), so local particular type of outcrop (porphyritic restricted in range and low in numbers. extinction through natural causes is granite) and presently receives no Publicity surrounding the listing of these possible. Amphianthus pusillus, Isoetes protection under Georgia’s Wildflower species could increase interest in all melanospom, and Isoetes tegetiformans Preservation Act of 1973. At most sites three of these unique species, and the are susceptible to inadvertent @a%),Isoetes tegetiformans occurs in sites are easily accessible. destruction because the pools in which only one or two pools and two of these C. Disease or Predation. they occur are exposed, and thus areas are active quarry sites. These two unprotected from vehicular traffic. plants are in danger of extinction These taxa are not known to be These outcrop endemica are not throughout all or significant portions of threatened by disease or predation. vigorous competitors (Rayner 1988, their ranges and therefore qualify as D. The Inadequacy of Existing Luebke, per-s.comm. 1988) and could be endangered species under the Act. Regulatory Mechanisms. eliminated by overcrowding and Threatened status seems appropriate shading (Lammers 1958, Krall983). One for Amphianthus pusillus which has a Amphiantus pusillus and Isoetes population of Amphiantus and one of melanospom are officially listed as Isoetes melanospom have been lost wider geographic range and two endangered by the Georgia Department through succession ( Allison, pers. populations in designated Nature of Natural Resources and are thereby comn~ 1988); however, natural Preserves. However, 21% of the afforded legal protection in the State succession is usually too slow to be a populations of Amphianthus’have been under the Wildflower Preservation Act significant problem, and new habitat is destroyed and 76% of the extant sites of 1973. Zsoetes tegetifoimans is not constantly being created (Burbanck and support only a limited population of this protected by Georgia law at the present Platt 1984). A more serious threat is from senus. Many of the populations face time. Georgia legislation prohibits taking accelerated succession caused by severe threats and Amphianthus could of p!ants from public lands (without a excessive siltation from disturbance become endangered within the permit) and regulates the sale and upslope or from eutrophication of the foreseeable future; thus it is a transport of plants within the State. pools from cattle droppings (Bridges threatened species as defined by the However, Georgia law does not provide 1988b). Act. Critical habitat is not being protection against habitat destruction, Amphianthus is vulnerable due to its designated for reasons discussed in the the major threat to these species, and requirements for special environmental following section. has been inadequate in preventing the conditions (moisture, light) for Critical Habitat further decline of Zsoetes melanospom germination and growth and an and Amphiantuspusillus populations at unknown dormancy period for the seeds Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, two publicly-owned sites in De Kalb (Lunsford 1938, Garris 1989, Rayner requires that to the maximum extent County [Stone Mountain State Park and 1988). One factor believed to contribute prudent and determinable, the Secretary Mt. Arabia County Park). to the rarity of Amphianthus is the lack designate any habitat of a species which Although these species are of adaptation for seed dispersal is considered to be critical habitat at the unofficially recognized as an (Lunsford 1938). Preliminary research by time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened components RandaIl (1988) suggests that the endangered or threatened. The Service of their flora, South Carolina and principle mode of reproduction in finds that designation of critical habitat Alabama have no State laws protecting Amphianthus is agamospermy is not prudent for these species at this them. The Nature Conservancy owns (production of seeds by asexual process) time. Publication of critical habitat and manages Heggie’s Rock Preserve in and that this lack of genetic variation descriptions and maps would increase Columbia County, Georgia, which threatens its adaptive potential. The public interest and possibly lead to supports a moderate population (ten genetic integrity of Isoetes melanospora additional treats for these species from pools) of Amphiuanthus and a limited is threatened due to its frequent collecting and vandalism (see threat population (on pool) of Isoetes hybridization with Isoetes piedmontana factor “B” above). Distinctiveness of the tegetiformans. Amphianthus pusillus is and subsequent introgression. Hybrids outcrops increases their vulnerability also protected at Forty-Acre Rock may competitively displace Isoetes since they tower above the surrounding Preserve in Lancaster County, South melanospora, which requires a more vegetation and most are easily Carolina, which is owned by the South specialized type of microhabitat (Boom, accessible. No benefit can be identified Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources pers. comm. i988). through critical habitat designation that Department. Both preserves have The Service has carefulv assessed the would outweigh these potential threats. regulations restricting collecting and best scientific and comme”rcia1 Ah State agencies and counties will be motorized vehicles. However, these information available regarding the past, notified of the general location of the regulations are difficult to enforce and present, and future threats faced by sites and of the importance of protecting the areas are continuing to be disturbed. these species in determining to propose these species’ habitat. Protection of The Act would enhance the existing this rule. Based on this evaluation, the these species’ habitat will be addressed protection, provide Federal protection preferred action is to list Zsoetes through the recovery process and Fe&d Regisftu / Vol. 52, No. 33 1 Thursday. February 19, 1981 1 Proposed RuIes through fbe section 7 jeopardy standard. subject to the jurisdiction of the United requests must be made in writing and Therefore, it woufd nd be prudent to States fo import or export any addressed to the Endangered Species determine critical habitat for these endangered or threatened plant, Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES species at this time. tranPport it in intfa-atate or foreign section). commerce in the muree of a commercial National JZnvironmental Policy Act Available Camarvaticm h&mmrea activity, sekl or offer it for II& in Consemation measures provkkd to interstate or foreign commerce. oc to The Fish and Wildlife Service has species listed as endangered or remove it from areaa under Federal determined that an Environmental threatened under the Endangered juriadictkm and reduce it to possession. Aseessment, as defined under the Species Act include recognition, Seeds from cultivated epecimene of authority of the National Environmental recovery actions, requirements for threatened plant species are exempt Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared Federal protection, and prohibitions from these prohibitions provided that a in connection with regulations adopted against certain practicee. Recognition statement of “cultivated &gin” appears pursuant to Section 4(a) of the through listing encourages and results in on their containers. Certain exceptions Jkdangered Species Act of 1973. as conservation actions by Federal, State, can apply to agents of the Service and amended. A notice outlining the and private agencies, grcmps, and State conservation agencies, The Act Service’s reaeons for this determination individuals. The Endannered Sue&s and 50 CFR 1782,17.83, and 17.72 also was published in the Federal Register on Act provides for possible land’ provide for the issuance of permits to October 25,1983 (48 FR 49244). acquisition end cooperation with the carry out otherwise prohibited activities States end requires that recovery involving endangered or threatened References Cited actions be canied out for all listed species under certain circumstances. It Bake. WA Jr. 1970. Georgia granite. Nat. species. Such actions are initiated by the is anticipated that few trade permits Hiet. iW32-39. Service following listing. The protection wouId ever be sought or issued, since Boom. B.M. 1879. Systematic studies of the required of Federal agencies and the these species are unknnwn in cultivation genus Isoetes in the Southeastern United prohibitions against taking are and are uncommon in the wild. Requesb States.Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of discussed, in part, below. for copies of the regulations on plants Tennessee. Knoxville. 119 pp. Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and inquiries regarding them may be Boom, BM. 1980. Intersection hybrids in requires Federal agencies to evaluate addressed to the FederaI Wildlife Permit Isoetes. Amer. Fern Jour. 702-4. - their actions with respect to any species Boom. EM. 18SZ. Synopsis of lsoetes in the Office, US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeastern United States. Castanea 47:36- that is proposed or listed as endangered Washington, DC 20240 (703/23!%1903). 58. or threatened and with respect to its Public Comments Solicited Bridges, EL 1986~. Population inventory critical habitat, if any is being and mapping and the eeteblishment of B designated. Regulations implementing The Service intends that any final monitoring system for rare plant speciesal this interagency cooperation provision action resulting from this proposal will Heggie’sRock Preserve, Columbia County, of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part be as accurate and as effective as Georgia. Unpublished report fur The Nature 402, and were recently revised at 51 FR possible. Therefore, any comments or Conservancy. Southeast Regional Office, 19926 (June 3, 1986). Section 7(a)(4) suggestions from the public, other Chapel Hill, North Carolina 62 pp_ _ + requires Federal agencies to confer concerned government agencies, the attahmenta. informally with the Service on any scientific community, industry, or any Bribes. E.L 1968b. Stewardship abstract action that is likely to jeopardize the other interested party concerning any for Am>hiantuspusitlus. Preparea for The continued existence of a proposed aspect of this proposal are hereby Nature Conservancy.Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 7 pp. species or result in destruction or solicited. Comments particularly are Burbanck, M.P., and R.B. Piatt. 1964. adverse modification of proposed sought concerning: Granite outcrop communities of the Piedmont critical habitat. If a species is listed (1) Biological, commercial trade, or PIateau in Georgia. Ecology 45:282-306. subsequently, section 7[a)(z] requires other relevant data concerning any Englemann, G. 1877. The genus Isoetes in Federal agencies to ensure that threat (or lack thereof) to these species; North America. Trans. St. Louis Acad. Sci. activities ‘they authorize, fund, or carry (2) The location of any additional 4:358-390. out are not likely to jeopardize the populations of these species and the Evans, A.M. 1968. Isoetaceae. Page S-10. In continued existence of such a species or reasons why any habitat should or AX. Radford &. al. (eds.). Manual of the to destroy or adversely modify its should not be determined to be critical Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. of critical habitat. If a Federal action may habitat as provided by section 4 of the North Carolina, Chapel Hill. affect a listed species or its critical Act; Garris, R.S. 1980. The endangered endemic, (3) Additional information concerning AmphiantospusNus: a study of distribution habitat, the responsible Federal agency and density. Georgia Dept. of Natural must enter into formal consultation with the range and distribution of these Resources, Protected Plants/Natural Areas the Service. Al1 presently known sites species; and Program. Unpublished report. Ml pp. + for these species are on private, State- (4) Current or planned activities in the attachments. owned, or county-owned land. subject area and their possible impacts Harper, R.M. 1939. Granite outcrop Currently, co activities to be authorized, on these species. vegetation in Alabama. Torreya 39:153-159. funded, or carried out by Federal Final promuIgation of the regulation lohnson. M. 1938. Studies in the life cycle of agencies are known that would affect on these species will take into Isoeies melanospora. M.A. Thesis. Emory these species. consideration the comments and any Univ., At!anta, Georgia 39 pp. The Act acd its impIementing additional information received by the Kral. R. 1983. A report on some rare. regulations found at 50 CFR 17.61, 17.62, Service, and such communications may threatened. or endangered forest-related vascular plants of the eouth. USDA, Forest and 17.83 [for endangered), and 17.71 lead to adoption of a final regulation Service. Tech. Pub. RB-TPZ. 1305 pp. and 17.72 [for threatenedl set forth a that differs from this proposal. Lammers. W.T. 1958. A study of certain series of general trade prohibitions and The Endangered Species Act provides environmental and physiological factors exceptions that apply to al! endangered f3r a pubIic hearing on this proposal, if influencing the adaptation of three granite or threatened plants. These prohibitions, requested. Requests must be filed within ou!crop endemics: Amphianthus pudus in part, make it illegal for any person 45 days of the dafe of the proposal. Such Torr.. fsoetes me1aonospora EngIem.. and Federal Register 1 Vol. 52, No. 33 f Thursday, February 19, 1987 / Proposed Rules 5155

Diamarpha cymoso (Nutt.) Britton. Ph.D. Pfeiffer, N.F. 1922. Monograph of the List of Subjects io 50 CFR Part 17 Dissertation, Emory Univ., Atlanta. Georgia. Isoetaceae. Ann MO. Bat. Gard. 9~7~~33. 65 PP. Randall, R.R. 1966. Electrophorectic study Endangered and threatened wildlife, Lester, J.C. 1936. Geology of region around of the genetic variation in Amphianthus Fish, Marine mammals, Plants Stone Mountain, Georgia. Univ. of California pusillus Torr. Unpublished undergraduate (agriculture). Studies 26~88-91. research report,.Emory University. Atlanta. Lunsford. DE. 1938. Studies in the life cycle Georgia. u) pp. +attachmente. Proposed Regulations Promulgation of Amphianthus pusillus Torr. M.A. Thesis, Rayner, D.A. Granite flatrock outcrops in Emory Univ., Atlanta. Georgia. 66 pp. + South Carolina. Bull. South Carolina Acad. PART 17+AMENDED] attachments. Sci. 43:106-107. Matthews, J.F., and W.H. Murdy. 1989. A Rayner. D.A. 1966. Report on the statue of Accordingly, it is hereby proposed to study of Isoefes common to the granite Amphianthuspusillos in South Carolina. amend Part 17. Subchapter B of Chapter outcrops of the Southeastern Piedmont. Provided under contract to the U.S. Fish and I, Title 50 of the Code of Federal United States. Bat. Gaz. 130:53-6l. Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta. Georgia. 33 pp. Regulations, as set forth below: McVaugh. R. 1943. The vegetation of the 1. The authority citation for Part 17 granite flatrocks of the Southeastern U.S. Reed, CF. 1965. Isoetes in the Southeastern Ecol. Monog. 13:1~&166. United States. Phytologia 12:3694CnJ. continues to read as follows: McVaugh, R., and J.H. Pyron. 1937. The Rury, P.M. 1978. A new and unique, mat- Authority: Pub. L. 93-265.67 Stat. 884: Pub. distribution of Amphionfhus in Georgia. forming Merlin’s grass (Isoetes) from Georgia. L 94-359.90 Stat. 91% Pub. L. 95-632.92 Stat. Castanea 2:104-105. Amer. Fern Jour. 66~99-106. Rury. P.M. 1965. New locations for Isoetes 3751; Pub. L. 96-159.93 Stat. 1225; Pub. L. 97- Miller, D.L. 1965. Report on a survey of 304.96 Stat. 1411 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Amphiontus pusilfus (little amphianthus) in tegetiformans in Georgia. Amer. Fern Jour. Alabama. Provided under contract to the U.S. 75:102-104. 2. It is proposed to amend 0 17.12(h) Rury. P.M. 1966. February 16.1966. letter to Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, by adding the following, in alphabetical Atlanta, Georgia. 33 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wharton, C.H. 1978. The Natural order, to the List of Endangered and Murdy. W.H. 1966. Plant speciation Environments of Georgia. Georgia Dept. of Threatened Plants: associated with granite outcrop communities Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia. 227 pp. of the Southeastern Piedmont. Rhodora 8 17.12 Endangered and threatened 70:394-Nl7. Author planta Pennell, F.W. 1935. The Scrophulariaceae of Eastern Temperate North America. Acad. The primary author of this proposed l l l l l Nat. Sci. of Physology Monog. No. 1. rule is Gary Norquist (see ADDRESSES (h) l l l Philadelphia. 635 pp. section) [601/965-4900 or FE3 490-4900).

specie0 Histom range SlatUr when listed catical saenwlcnsme Gmlmon name habiial %I2

...... IscetacI w lwc?fes nwa m ...... Black-spored quilhvort ...... U.S.A. (GA. SC) ...... E ...... ,... ..-.. _ NA NA b~Wes fe@sOf- . ..t...... l.4al-lcm~~ quWml ...... U.S.A. (GA) ...... t___...... E ...... NA NA ...... Scrmceae-Sgal fsmirv: AWfWWKSpuPUur I...... Little MIP~WMUS ...... U.S.A. (AL. GA, SC) .__._....._...... ,...... T ...... NA NA ......

Dated: January 28,1967. P. Daniel Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Dot. 87-3411 Filed 2-18-87; 8~5 amJ BILLING CODE 4310-55-M