[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 665-689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-130]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AD11
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for Three Wetland Species Found in Southern Arizona
and Northern Sonora, Mexico
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines endangered
status for the Canelo Hills ladies-tresses (Spiranthes delitescens),
the Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva), and
the Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi) pursuant to
the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). These species occur in a limited number of wetland habitats in
southern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. They are threatened by
one or more of the following--collecting, disease, predation,
competition with nonnative species, and degradation and destruction of
habitat resulting from livestock overgrazing, water diversions,
dredging, and groundwater pumping. All three taxa also are threatened
with extirpations or extinction from naturally occurring climatic and
other environmental events, such as catastrophic floods and drought, a
threat that is exacerbated by habitat alteration and small numbers of
populations or individuals. This rule implements Federal protection
provided by the Act for these three taxa.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 1997.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103,
Phoenix, Arizona 85021, telephone (602/640-2720), or facsimile (602/
640-2730).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rorabaugh or Angie Brooks (see
ADDRESSES section).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Cienegas in southern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico, are
typically mid-elevation wetland communities often surrounded by
relatively arid environments. These communities are usually associated
with perennial springs and stream headwaters, have permanently or
seasonally saturated highly organic soils, and have a low probability
of flooding or scouring (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). Cienegas
support diverse assemblages of animals and plants, including many
species of limited distribution, such as the three taxa addressed in
this final rule (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Lowe 1985, Ohmart and
Anderson 1982, Minckley and Brown 1982). Although Spiranthes
delitescens (Spiranthes), Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva
(Lilaeopsis), and the Sonora tiger salamander typically occupy
different microhabitats, they all occur or once occurred in cienegas.
Lilaeopsis is also found along streams and rivers and occurs at mid-
elevations, from 1,148-2,133 meters (m) (3,500-6,500 feet (ft)). The
Sonora tiger salamander occurs mostly in cattle tanks and impounded
cienegas, but presumably was associated primarily with natural cienegas
and other wetlands prior to human settlement.
Cienegas, perennial streams, and rivers in the desert southwest are
extremely rare. The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD)(1993)
recently estimated that riparian vegetation associated with perennial
streams comprises about 0.4 percent of the total land area of Arizona,
with present riparian areas being remnants of what once existed. The
State of Arizona (1990) estimated that up to 90 percent of the riparian
habitat along Arizona's major desert watercourses has been lost,
degraded, or altered. Spiranthes, Lilaeopsis, and the Sonora tiger
salamander occupy small portions of these rare habitats.
Spiranthes is a slender, erect, terrestrial orchid that, when in
flower, reaches approximately 50 centimeters (cm) (20 inches (in.))
tall. Five to 10, linear-lanceolate, grass-like leaves, 18 cm (7.1 in.)
long and 1.5 cm (0.6 in.) wide, grow basally on the stem. The fleshy,
swollen roots are approximately 5 mm (0.2 in.) in diameter. The top of
the flower stalk contains up to 40 small white flowers arranged in a
spiral. This species is presumed to be perennial, but mature plants
rarely flower in consecutive years and, in some years, have no visible
above ground structures (McClaran and Sundt 1992, Newman 1991).
Martin first collected Spiranthes delitescens in 1968 at a site in
Santa Cruz County, Arizona (Sheviak 1990). This specimen was initially
identified as Spiranthes graminea, a related Mexican species. Sheviak
(1990) found that the Spiranthes specimens in Arizona, previously
thought to be S.
[[Page 666]]
graminea, displayed a distinct set of morphological and cytological
characteristics and named them S. delitescens.
This species is known from five sites at about 1,525 m (5,000 ft.)
elevation in the San Pedro River watershed in Santa Cruz and Cochise
Counties, southern Arizona (Newman 1991). The total amount of occupied
habitat is less than 81 hectares (ha) (200 acres (ac)). Four of the
populations are on private land less than 37 kilometers (km) (23 miles
(mi)) north of the U.S./Mexico border; one additional small site
containing four individuals was discovered on public land in 1996 (Mima
Falk, Coronado National Forest, pers. comm. 1996). This site is located
near a previously known population. Potential habitat in Sonora,
Mexico, has been surveyed but no S. delitescens populations have been
found (Sheviak 1995, Newman 1991).
The dominant vegetation associated with Spiranthes includes
grasses, sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), spike rush
(Eleocharis spp.), cattails (Typha spp.), and horsetails (Equisetum
spp.) (Cross 1991, Warren et al. 1991). Associated grass species
include bluegrass (Poa pratensis), Johnson grass (sorghum halepense),
Muhlenbergia asperifolia, and Muhlenbergia utilis (Fishbein and Gori
1994). The surrounding vegetation is semidesert grassland or oak
savannah.
All Spiranthes populations occur where scouring floods are very
unlikely (Newman 1991). Soils supporting the populations are finely
grained, highly organic, and seasonally or perennially saturated.
Springs are the primary water source, but a creek near one locality
contributes near-surface groundwater (McClaran and Sundt 1992). As with
most terrestrial orchids, successful seedling establishment probably
depends on the successful formation of endomycorrhizae (a symbiotic
association between plant root tissue and fungi) (McClaran and Sundt
1992). The time needed for subterranean structures to produce above
ground growth is unknown. Plants may remain in a dormant, subterranean
state or remain vegetative (nonflowering) for more than one consecutive
year. Plants that flower one year can become dormant, vegetative, or
reproductive the next year (McClaran and Sundt 1992, Newman 1991). The
saprophytic/autotrophic state of orchid plants may be determined by
climatic fluctuations and edaphic factors, such as pH, temperature, and
soil moisture (Sheviak 1990).
Estimating Spiranthes population size and stability is difficult
because nonflowering plants are very hard to find in the dense
herbaceous vegetation, and yearly counts underestimate the population
because dormant plants are not counted. McClaran and Sundt (1992) twice
monitored marked individuals in a Spiranthes population during 2-3 year
periods. They concluded that both monitored sites were stable between
1987 and 1989, although Newman (1991) later reported that one monitored
site was reduced to one nonflowering plant in 1991. Due to the
propensity of Spiranthes to enter and remain in a vegetation state and
the lack of new flowering plants at one monitoring site, overall
population numbers are believed to be declining. McClaran and Sundt
(1992) also speculated that population numbers may be declining.
Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva is an herbaceous, semiaquatic
perennial plant with slender, erect leaves that grow from creeping
rhizomes. The leaves are cylindrical, hollow with no pith, and have
septa (thin partitions) at regular intervals. The yellow-green or
bright green leaves are generally 1-3 millimeters (mm) (0.04-0.12 in.)
in diameter and often 3-5 centimeters (cm) tall (1-2 in.), but can
reach up to 20 cm (8 in.) tall under favorable conditions. Three to 10
very small flowers are borne on an umbel that is always shorter than
the leaves. The fruits are globose, 1.5-2 mm (0.06-0.08 in.) in
diameter, and usually slightly longer than wide (Affolter 1985). The
species reproduces sexually through flowering and asexually from
rhizomes, the latter probably being the primary reproductive mode. An
additional dispersal opportunity occurs as a result of the dislodging
of clumps of plants, which then may reroot in a different site along
aquatic systems.
Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva was first described by A.W.
Hill based on the type specimen collected near Tucson in 1881 (Hill
1926). Hill applied the name Lilaeopsis recurva to the specimen, and
the name prevailed until Affolter (1985) revised the genus. Affolter
applied the name L. schaffneriana ssp. recurva to plants found east of
the continental divide.
Lilaeopsis has been documented from 22 sites in Santa Cruz,
Cochise, and Pima counties, Arizona, and in adjacent Sonora, Mexico,
west of the continental divide (Saucedo 1990, Warren et al. 1989,
Warren et al. 1991, Warren and Reichenbacher 1991). The plant has been
extirpated from 6 of the 22 sites. The 16 extant sites occur in 4 major
watersheds--San Pedro River, Santa Cruz River, Rio Yaqui, and Rio
Sonora. All sites are between 1,148-2,133 m (3,500-6,500 ft) elevation.
Nine Lilaeopsis populations occur in the San Pedro River watershed
in Arizona and Sonora, on sites owned or managed by private landowners,
Fort Huachuca Military Reservation, the Coronado National Forest, and
the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Tucson District. Two extirpated
populations in the upper San Pedro watershed occurred at Zinn Pond in
St. David and the San Pedro River near St. David. Cienega-like habitats
were probably common along the San Pedro River prior to 1900
(Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Jackson et al. 1987), but these
habitats are now largely gone. Surveys conducted for wildlife habitat
assessment have found several discontinuous clumps of Lilaeopsis within
the upper San Pedro River where habitat was present in 1996 prior to
recent flooding (Mark Fredlake, Bureau of Land Management, pers. comm.
1996).
The four Lilaeopsis populations in the Santa Cruz watershed
probably represent very small remnants of larger populations, which may
have occurred in the extensive riparian and aquatic habitat formerly
along the river. Before 1890, the spatially intermittent, perennial
flows on the middle Santa Cruz River most likely provided a
considerable amount of habitat for Lilaeopsis and other aquatic plants.
The middle section of the Santa Cruz River mainstem is about a 130 km
(80 mi) reach that flowed perennially from the Tubac area south to the
U.S./Mexico border and intermittently from Tubac north to the Tucson
area (Davis 1986). Davis (1982) quotes from the July 1855, descriptive
journal entry of Julius Froebel while camped on the Santa Cruz River
near Tucson: ``* * * rapid brook, clear as crystal, and full of aquatic
plants, fish, and tortoises of various kinds, flowed through a small
meadow covered with shrubs. * * *'' This habitat and species assemblage
no longer occurs in the Tucson area. In the upper watershed of the
middle Santa Cruz River, the species is now represented only by a
single population in two short reaches of Sonoita Creek. A population
at Monkey Spring in the upper watershed of the middle Santa Cruz River
has been extirpated, although suitable habitat exists (Warren et al.
1991).
Two Lilaeopsis populations occur in the Rio Yaqui watershed. The
species was recently discovered at Presa Cuquiarichi, in the Sierra de
los Ajos, several miles east of Cananea, Sonora (Tom Deecken, Coronado
National Forest, pers. comm. 1994). The species remains in small areas
(generally less than 1 m 2 (10.8 ft 2) in Black Draw,
[[Page 667]]
Cochise County, Arizona. Transplants from Black Draw have been
successfully established in nearby wetlands and ponds. Recent
renovation of House Pond on private land near Black Draw extirpated the
Lilaeopsis population. A population in the Rio San Bernardino in Sonora
was also recently extirpated (Gori et al. 1990). One Lilaeopsis
population occurs in the Rio Sonora watershed at Ojo de Agua, a cienega
in Sonora at the headwaters of the river (Saucedo 1990).
Lilaeopsis has an opportunistic strategy that ensures its survival
in healthy riverine systems, cienegas, and springs. In upper watersheds
that generally do not experience scouring floods, Lilaeopsis occurs in
microsites where interspecific plant competition is low. At these
sites, Lilaeopsis occurs on wetted soils interspersed with other plants
at low density, along the periphery of the wetted channel, or in small
openings in the understory. The upper Santa Cruz River and associated
springs in the San Rafael Valley, where a population of Lilaeopsis
occurs, is an example of a site that meets these conditions. The types
of microsites required by Lilaeopsis were generally lost from the main
stems of the San Pedro and Santa Cruz Rivers when channel entrenchment
occurred in the late 1800's. Habitat on the upper San Pedro River is
recovering, and Lilaeopsis has recently recolonized small reaches of
the main channel.
In stream and river habitats, Lilaeopsis can occur in backwaters,
side channels, and nearby springs. After a flood, Lilaeopsis can
rapidly expand its population and occupy disturbed habitat until
interspecific competition exceeds its tolerance. This response was
recorded at Sonoita Creek in August 1988, when a scouring flood removed
about 95 percent of the Lilaeopsis population (Gori et al. 1990). One
year later, Lilaeopsis had recolonized the stream and was again co-
dominant with watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum) (Warren et al.
1991). The expansion and contraction of Lilaeopsis populations appears
to depend on the presence of ``refugia'' where the species can escape
the effects of scouring floods, a watershed that has an unaltered
hydrograph, and a healthy riparian community that stabilizes the
channel. Two patches of Lilaeopsis on the San Pedro River were lost
during a winter flood in 1994 and had still not recolonized that area
as of May of 1995, demonstrating the dynamic and often precarious
nature of occurrences within a riparian system (Al Anderson, Grey Hawk
Ranch, in litt. 1995).
Density of Lilaeopsis plants and size of populations fluctuate in
response to both flood cycles and site characteristics. Some sites,
such as Black Draw, have a few sparsely distributed clones, possibly
due to the dense shade of the even-aged overstory of trees and deeply
entrenched channel. The Sonoita Creek population occupies 14.5 percent
of a 500.5 m 2 (5,385 ft 2) patch of habitat (Gori et al.
1990). Some populations are as small as 1-2 m 2 (11-22 ft 2).
The Scotia Canyon population, by contrast, has dense mats of leaves.
Scotia Canyon contains one of the larger Lilaeopsis populations,
occupying about 57 percent of the 1,450 m (4,756 ft) perennial reach
(Gori et al. 1990; Jim Abbott, Coronado National Forest, in litt.
1994).
While the extent of occupied habitat can be estimated, the number
of individuals in each population is impossible to determine because of
the intermeshing nature of the creeping rhizomes and the predominantly
asexual mode of reproduction. A population of Lilaeopsis may be
composed of one or many individuals.
Introduction of Lilaeopsis into ponds on the San Bernardino
National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) appears to be successful (Warren
1991). In 1991, Lilaeopsis was transplanted from Black Draw into new
ponds and other Refuge wetlands. Transplants placed in areas with low
plant density expanded rapidly (Warren 1991). In 1992, Lilaeopsis
naturally colonized a pond created in 1991. However, as plant
competition increased around the perimeter of the pond, the Lilaeopsis
population decreased. This response seems to confirm observations
(Kevin Cobble, San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, pers. comm.
1994; and Peter Warren, Arizona Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. 1993)
that other species such as Typha sp. will outcompete Lilaeopsis.
The Sonora tiger salamander is a large salamander with a dark
venter and light colored blotches, bars, or reticulation on a dark
background. Snout/vent lengths of metamorphosed individuals vary from
approximately 6.7 to 12.5 cm (2.6-4.9 in.) (Jones et al. 1988, Lowe
1954). Larval salamanders are aquatic with plume-like gills and well-
developed tail fins (Behler and King 1980). Larvae hatched in the
spring are large enough to metamorphose into terrestrial salamanders
from late July to early September, but only an estimated 17 to 40
percent metamorphose annually. Remaining larvae mature into branchiates
(aquatic and larval-like, but sexually mature salamanders that remain
in the breeding pond) or over-winter as larvae (Collins and Jones 1987;
James Collins, Arizona State University, pers. comm. 1993).
The Sonora tiger salamander was discovered in 1949 at the J.F.
Jones Ranch stock tank in Parker Canyon, San Rafael Valley, Arizona
(Reed 1951). Based on color patterns of metamorphosed animals, Lowe
(1954) described the Sonora tiger salamander from southern Santa Cruz
County, Arizona, as the subspecies stebbinsi of the broad-ranging tiger
salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum). However, again based on color
patterns, Gelhbach (1965, 1967) synonomized Ambystoma tigrinum
stebbinsi and Ambystoma tigrinum tahense (from the Rocky Mountains
region) with Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum (from northern Arizona and
New Mexico). Nevertheless, Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi continued to be
recognized in the scientific literature (Jones et al. 1988).
Jones et al. (1988) found that Lowe's description of color patterns
in Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi was only accurate for recently
metamorphosed individuals. About 40 percent of metamorphosed adults
exhibit a unique reticulate pattern, while 60 percent are marked with
light colored blotches, spots, or bars on a dark background that is
indistinguishable from Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium, found in the
central United States and adjacent portions of Mexico (Jones et al.
1995). Starch gel electrophoresis of 21 presumptive gene loci of
Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi were compared with gene loci of Ambystoma
rosaceum (from Sonora), Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium, and Ambystoma
tigrinum nebulosum (Jones et al. 1988). Based on this analysis,
distinctive reticulate color patterns, low heterozygosity, and apparent
geographic isolation, subspecific designation of Ambystoma tigrinum
stebbinsi was considered warranted by Collins and Jones (1987) and
Jones et al. (1988). Further analysis of mitochondrial DNA reaffirmed
subspecific designation (Collins et al. 1988). Color pattern and
allozyme data suggests that Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi is closely
related to Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium; however, the Ambystoma
tigrinum stebbinsi haplotype is derived from Ambystoma tigrinum
nebulosum. The most likely explanation for these observations is that
Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi arose from a hybridization between
Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium and Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum (Jones et
al. 1995).
The grassland community of the San Rafael Valley and adjacent
montane
[[Page 668]]
slopes, where all extant populations of Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi
occur, may represent a relict grassland and therefore a refugium for
grassland species. Tiger salamanders in this area became isolated and,
over time, genetically distinct from ancestral Ambystoma tigrinum
mavortium and Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum (Jones et al. 1995).
Based on color patterns and electrophoretic analysis, Ambystoma
collected in Mexico at one site in Sonora and 17 sites in Chihuahua
were all Ambystoma rosaceum, not Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi (Jones et
al. 1988). Reanalysis of reported Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi
collected in Sonora (Hansen and Tremper 1979) and at Yepomera,
Chihuahua (Van Devender 1973) revealed that these specimens were
actually Ambystoma tigrinum rosaceum (Jones et al. 1988).
Collins et al. (1988) list 18 sites for the Sonora tiger
salamander. Additional extensive survey work from 1993 through 1996
revealed another 18 sites, for a total of 36 (Collins 1996; James
Collins, Arizona State University, pers. comm. 1996). Salamanders
tentatively identified as Sonora tiger salamanders also have been found
at Portrero del Alamo at the Los Fresnos cienega in the headwaters of
the San Pedro River, San Rafael Valley, Sonora, Mexico (Sally
Stefferud, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1993) and at the
lower Peterson Ranch Tank in Scotia Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona. No
salamanders have been observed in recent visits to Scotia Canyon
(Service files, Phoenix, AZ; James Collins, pers. comm. 1996); thus,
this population may be extirpated. A single terrestrial Sonora tiger
salamander was found near Oak Spring in Copper Canyon of the Huachuca
Mountains (Jeff Howland, Arizona Game and Fish Department pers. comm.
1993). This individual likely moved to this site from a population at
the ``Game and Fish Tank'' located approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) to the
southwest.
All sites where Sonora tiger salamanders have been found are
located in the Santa Cruz and San Pedro river drainages, including
sites in the San Rafael Valley and adjacent portions of the Patagonia
and Huachuca mountains in Santa Cruz and Cochise counties, Arizona. All
confirmed historical and extant aquatic populations are found in cattle
tanks or impounded cienegas within 31 km (19 mi) of Lochiel, Arizona.
If the Los Fresnos population is the subspecies, stebbinsi, it is the
only population known to occur in a cienega. Historically, the Sonora
tiger salamander probably inhabited springs, cienegas, and possibly
backwater pools where permanent or nearly permanent water allowed
survival of mature branchiates.
A total of 79 aquatic sites in the San Rafael Valley and adjacent
slopes of the Huachuca and Patagonia mountains have been surveyed for
salamanders (Collins and Jones 1987, Collins 1996, James Collins, pers.
comm. 1996). These include most potential aquatic habitats on public
lands. However, private lands in the center of the San Rafael Valley
have not been surveyed intensively.
Thirty sites in northeastern Sonora and 26 sites in northwestern
Chihuahua, Mexico, were surveyed by Collins and Jones (1987). No Sonora
tiger salamanders were found at these sites. Ambystoma rosaceum and
Ambystoma tigrinum velasci occur at localities in Sonora and Chihuahua
to the south and east of the extant range of the Sonora tiger
salamander (Collins 1979, Collins and Jones 1987, Van Devender and Lowe
1977). Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium occurs at scattered localities to
the east in the San Pedro, Sulphur Springs, and San Simon valleys of
Arizona (Collins and Jones 1987), but at least some of these
populations were introduced by anglers and bait collectors (Collins
1981, Lowe 1954, Nickerson and Mays 1969).
Populations are dynamic. In particular, drought and disease
periodically extirpate or greatly reduce populations. Several tanks
supporting aquatic populations went dry during drought in 1994 and
again in 1996. As tanks dry out, some larval and branchiate salamanders
metamorphose and leave the tanks; others desiccate and die. Disease
killed all aquatic salamanders at least three sites in 1985 (Collins et
al. 1988), and also was evident in aquatic populations at seven tanks
in 1995-1996 (James Collins, pers. comm. 1996). Tanks in which
salamanders have been eliminated may be recolonized through
reproduction by terrestrial metamorphs. Drying of tanks also may
eliminate nonnative predators and create sites suitable for salamander
colonization.
Because populations are dynamic, the number and location of extant
aquatic populations change over time, as exhibited by the differences
between survey results in 1985 and 1993-1996 (Collins and Jones 1987;
Collins 1996; James Collins, pers. comm. 1996). Determining whether a
population is extant is problematic. If numbers are low, salamanders
may not be detected during sampling. Also, aquatic salamanders may have
been recently eliminated due to drought or disease, but terrestrial
salamanders may be present in the area. Of the 36 sites where aquatic
Sonora tiger salamanders were recorded since the mid or early 1980's
and no salamanders have been found at 4 tanks during the last 3 visits
from 1993 to 1996. Salamanders were probably extirpated from these
sites. Salamanders also were found to be extirpated from the J.F. Jones
Ranch Tank, the type locality (Collins and Jones 1987). Salamanders
have not been found during the last three visits from 1993 through 1996
at five other tanks. Salamanders may be extirpated from these sites.
Another three sites where salamanders were found from 1980 to 1983 have
not been surveyed since that time. The status of populations at these
tanks is unknown. At the remaining 23 tanks, salamanders have been
found during 1 or more of the last 3 visits from 1993 through 1996.
These populations are probably extant.
Populations of aquatic salamanders include as many as several
hundred individuals. However, 10 or more salamanders in any 1 visit
were found at only 16 of 32 occupied sites examined by Collins from
1993 through 1996 (James Collins, pers. comm. 1996). Large, reproducing
populations of Sonora tiger salamanders were more concentrated in the
southeastern portion of the San Rafael Valley in the 1990's as compared
to the 1980's. Sampling during 1993-1996 revealed few populations and
low numbers of salamanders in the northern portion of the valley
(Collins 1996).
A variety of factors threaten the Sonora tiger salamander. Disease
and predation by introduced nonnative fishes and bullfrogs (Rana
catesbeiana) are probably the most serious and immediate threats, both
of which have been implicated in the elimination of aquatic populations
(Collins and Jones 1987, Collins 1996). Tiger salamanders also are
widely used in Arizona as fishing bait, and this use poses additional
threats. Other subspecies of tiger salamander introduced into habitats
of the Sonora tiger salamander for bait propagation or by anglers
could, through interbreeding, genetically swamp distinct Ambystoma
tigrinum stebbinsi populations (Collins and Jones 1987, Collins 1996).
Collecting Sonora tiger salamanders for bait could extirpate or greatly
reduce populations. Furthermore, moving of salamanders among tanks by
anglers or bait collectors also could transmit disease. Additional
threats include habitat destruction, reduced fitness resulting from low
genetic heterozygosity, and increased probability of chance extirpation
characteristic of small populations.
[[Page 669]]
Previous Federal Actions
Federal government action on Spiranthes delitescens, Lilaeopsis
schaffneriana ssp. recurva, and Sonora tiger salamander began with
their inclusion in various Service notices of review for listing as
endangered or threatened species. The Sonora tiger salamander was
included as a category 2 candidate in the first notice of review of
vertebrate wildlife (December 30, 1982; 47 FR 58454), and in subsequent
notices published September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958) and January 6, 1989
(54 FR 554). Category 2 candidates were those species for which the
Service had some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there was
insufficient scientific and commercial information to support a
proposed rule to list them as threatened or endangered. In notices of
review published November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804) and November 15, 1994
(59 FR 58982), the Sonora tiger salamander was included as a category 1
candidate. Category 1 includes those taxa for which the Service has
sufficient information to support proposed rules to list them as
threatened or endangered.
Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva, then under the name L.
recurva, was included as a category 2 candidate in the November 28,
1983 (45 FR 82480) and September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526) plant notices.
It was included as a category 1 candidate in the February 21, 1990 (55
FR 6184) and September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144) notices. Spiranthes
delitescens was included as a category 1 candidate in the September 30,
1993, plant notice.
On June 3, 1993, the Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,
received three petitions, dated May 31, 1993, from a coalition of
conservation organizations (Suckling et al. 1993). The petitioners
requested the listing of Spiranthes, Lilaeopsis, and the Sonora tiger
salamander as endangered species pursuant to the Act. On December 14,
1993, the Service published a notice of three 90-day findings that the
petitions presented substantial information indicating that listing
these three species may be warranted, and requested public comments and
biological data on the status of the species (58 FR 65325). On April 3,
1995, the Service published a proposal (60 FR 16836) to list
Spiranthes, Lilaeopsis, and the Sonora tiger salamander as endangered
species, and again requested public comments and biological data on
their status.
The processing of this final listing rule conforms with the
Service's Final Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Year 1997,
published on December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475). The guidance clarifies the
order in which the Service will process rulemakings following two
related events, the lifting on April 26, 1996, of the moratorium on
final listings imposed on April 10, 1995 (Public Law 104-6), and the
restoration of significant funding for listing through passage of the
omnibus budget reconciliation law on April 26, 1996, following severe
funding constraints imposed by a number of continuing resolutions
between November 1995 and April 1996. The guidance calls for giving
highest priority to handling emergency situations (Tier 1) and second
highest priority (Tier 2) to resolving the listing status of the
outstanding proposed listings. This final rule falls under Tier 2.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the April 3, 1995, proposed rule (60 FR 16836) and associated
notifications, all interested parties were requested to submit factual
reports or information that might contribute to development of a final
rule. The original comment period closed June 2, 1995, then was
reopened from June 24, 1995, to July 24, 1995 (60 FR 32483), and again
from September 11, 1995, to October 27, 1995 (60 FR 47340). Appropriate
State agencies and representatives, County and City governments,
Federal agencies and representatives, scientific organizations, and
other interested parties were contacted and requested to comment.
Newspaper/media notices inviting public comment were published in the
following newspapers--Arizona Daily Star, Arizona Republic, Bisbee
Daily Review, Eastern Arizona Courier, Environmental Network News,
Green Valley News/Sun, Nogales International, Sierra Vista Herald-
Dispatch, The Phoenix Gazette, The Weekly Bulletin, Tombstone
Tumbleweed, and Tucson Citizen. The inclusive dates of publications
were April 20 and 21, 1995, for the initial comment period; and June 28
to July 4, 1995, and September 15, 1995, to September 20, 1995, for the
first and second public hearings and reopening of the comment period,
respectively.
In response to requests from the public, the Service held two
public hearings. Notices of hearing dates and locations were published
in the Federal Register on June 22, 1995 (60 FR 32483) and September
12, 1995 (60 FR 47340). Appropriate State agencies and representatives,
County and City governments, Federal agencies and representatives,
scientific organizations, and other interested parties were contacted
regarding the hearings. Approximately 790 people attended the hearings,
including approximately 90 people at a July 13, 1995, hearing in
Patagonia, Arizona; and 700 at a September 27, 1995, hearing in Sierra
Vista, Arizona. Transcripts of these hearings are available for
inspection (see ADDRESSES).
A total of 229 written comment letters were received--40 supported
the proposed listing, 164 opposed listing, and 25 others commented on
information in the proposed rule but expressed neither support nor
opposition, provided additional information only, or were
nonsubstantive or irrelevant to the proposed listing. Oral comments
were received from 51 parties at the hearings--11 supported listing, 20
opposed listing, and 20 expressed neither support nor opposition,
provided additional information only, or were nonsubstantive or
irrelevant to the listing. In total, oral or written comments were
received from 4 Federal and State agencies and officials, 14 local
officials, and 262 private organizations, companies, and individuals.
All comments, both oral and written, received during the comment period
are addressed in the following summary. Comments of a similar nature
are grouped into a number of general issues. The Service's response to
each comment is discussed below.
Issue 1: Other processes, especially conservation agreements in
lieu of listing, could be more effective at protecting these species,
and would impose fewer regulations and restrictions on land use as
compared to Federal listing. Also, additional steps or processes,
particularly closer working relationships among the Service, local
governments, and landowners, should be incorporated into the listing
process.
Comment: Several commenters suggested preparing a conservation
agreement among the Service, other Federal agencies, State agencies,
local governments, and private landowners, in lieu of listing one or
more of the three species. Environmental education is needed to raise
local awareness of the plight of these species. A cooperative research
and conservation program should be developed. Possible components of
the cooperative effort could include conservation easements, or
landowners could apply for membership in Oregon Stronghold, a
corporation dedicated to conservation practices on private land.
Service Response: The Service considered conservation agreements in
lieu of listing for all three species. Discussions with the Coronado
National
[[Page 670]]
Forest, Fort Huachuca, and AGFD on development of a conservation
agreement for the Sonora tiger salamander began in September 1995.
Meetings were held November 28, 1995 and January 24, 1996, among
landowners, Fort Huachuca, the Coronado National Forest, experts on the
salamander, and the Service to discuss development of the agreement.
The participants in the meetings and discussions, including the
Service, generally agreed that a properly crafted and promptly-
implemented conservation agreement could provide for the long-term
viability of the species.
In May 1996, the Service wrote all 13 private landowners within the
range of the salamander to solicit their participation. Only two
landowners have agreed to participate, and only one is known to have
salamander populations on their property. These populations are on
lands proposed for exchange to the Coronado National Forest. The
Service estimates that approximately 31 percent of the range of the
salamander are owned by individuals not currently interested in
participating in a conservation agreement. Because a limited
conservation agreement would not protect the species throughout its
range, and because no conservation actions have actually been developed
or implemented, these efforts are inadequate to preclude listing.
However, the Service will continue to work with and encourages the
participation of any interested parties in the conservation of this
species.
No interest in the development of a conservation agreement for
Spiranthes was expressed by the owners of the species' habitat. Some
interest in the development of a conservation agreement for Lilaeopsis
was expressed; however, only a few sites would have been protected
leaving the majority of the populations unprotected. Additionally, the
complex nature of the water issues involving Lilaeopsis made it
difficult for the Service to assure the few interested parties that
listing would necessarily be precluded through a conservation plan.
This lack of assurance was unacceptable to one of the Federal agencies.
Currently, Fort Huachuca is the only Federal entity working on a
conservation plan for Lilaeopsis. This plan would be part of a larger
land use plan.
Comment: One commenter stated that the Service was trying to coerce
private landowners into compliance with the Act through the use of
conservation agreements. This commenter also stated that the Service
was, through the use of conservation agreements, attempting to halt all
ranching, farming, mining, logging, surface water diversion,
groundwater pumping, and urban development, without the due process of
listing the species. This commenter believed this was an attempt by the
Service to gain greater control over activities on private lands. This
commenter also stated that the purpose for the inclusion of the Sonora
tiger salamander in the cienega species listing package was to provide
a means for regulatory action on private lands for the two plants.
Service Response: Conservation agreements are voluntary plans for
the conservation and recovery of species. They can preclude the need to
list species by removing threats. However, any actions developed and
implemented are a result of discussion and concurrence of all parties
to the agreement. If decisions were made to halt or limit ranching,
groundwater pumping, or other activities, these commitments would be
made by the property owners and managers where these activities occur.
If such commitments were unacceptable to one or more parties, they
would have the option not to sign the agreement and not implement such
activities. The Service characterizes conservation agreements as
positive opportunities for landowners and managers to voluntarily take
actions to conserve species being considered for listing and alleviate
the need for listing and any resulting regulatory requirements.
The Service and other possible agencies in conservation agreements
administer programs to fund and assist landowners in the implementation
of conservation actions. The salamander is not known to occur with
Lilaeopsis or Spiranthes, with the possible exceptions of Scotia Canyon
and Los Fresnos. However, the salamanders at these sites have not been
identified to subspecies. Because the salamander generally does not
occur with the plants, regulatory protection afforded the salamander
would have no effect on the plants.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Service comply
with a resolution adopted by the National Association of Counties and
the Arizona County Supervisors Association in regard to implementation
of the Act. The ``Resolution on Amending the Endangered Species Act''
recommends increased participation of counties in species conservation,
prelisting activities, listing and recovery decisions; analysis of
economic, social and cultural impacts of listing; consultation with and
compensation to affected landowners; and other provisions. Local
governments should decide if species should be listed. Listing should
be decided by a vote of the residents of Cochise County.
Service Response: Section 4(a) of the Act clearly assigns the
responsibility of making listing decisions to the Secretaries of the
Interior and Commerce, not to local governments or a voting body.
However, in making those decisions, the Secretaries are required to
take into account conservation actions (section 4(b)(1)(A)), notify and
invite comment from states, counties, and others on the proposed rules
(section 4(b)(5)), hold one public hearing on the proposed rule, if
requested (section 4(b)(5)(E)), and take other steps to ensure that the
concerns of local governments, citizens, and others are considered in
the listing decision. The Service appreciates the concern of local
governments and citizens of southeastern Arizona in regard to this and
other listings. The Service will work closely with residents and
officials in the management and recovery of these species.
Comment: One commenter stated that beaver reintroduction on the
upper San Pedro River, proposed by AGFD and the BLM, would create pond
and marsh habitat for Lilaeopsis and make listing unnecessary.
Service Response: The potential effects of beaver reintroduction on
the upper San Pedro River have not been fully analyzed as yet; however,
it is possible that a successful reintroduction could create pond and
marsh habitats. While a successful reintroduction may provide increased
habitat for Lilaeopsis, this action alone does not remove the complex
threats necessitating listing Lilaeopsis as endangered. Water issues on
the San Pedro River are discussed later in this rule. Additionally,
Lilaeopsis has not shown an ability to successfully compete with many
aquatic plant species. Lilaeopsis may be able to opportunistically
colonize such habitats early in their development; however, other plant
species may dominate the habitat at later stages in the absence of some
mild disturbance holding the system in an early seral stage.
Comment: One commenter suggested planning efforts for the San
Rafael Valley could be used to conserve these species.
Service Response: The Coronado National Forest has produced a draft
Lone Mountain Ecosystem Plan and discussions are underway to develop
ecosystem plans for other portions of the San Rafael Valley. The
Service has participated in these planning efforts and believes that
they have a potential to contribute to recovery of the Sonora tiger
salamander, Lilaeopsis, and
[[Page 671]]
perhaps Spiranthes. However, these plans have yet to be finalized and
potential benefits of these planning efforts have not yet been
realized. Thus, these efforts have not yet affected the status of the
species. The Service will continue to work with landowners and managers
in the San Rafael Valley on conservation actions. These actions are
expected to contribute to recovery.
Comment: One commenter stated that Spiranthes is and can be
propagated in botanical gardens. Growing the species in gardens should
be pursued, rather than Federal listing. It might be more cost-
effective to propagate the species and introduce them into a beneficial
environment. Another commenter stated that Lilaeopsis could not be an
endangered species since it could be successfully transplanted.
Service Response: The Service places priority on conservation of
species in the wild rather than pursuing horticultural programs for
species. The cultivation of plants with subsequent outplanting may be
done for reintroduction purposes; however, that type of activity alone
does not provide for conservation or recovery of a species, nor does it
address the habitat modification or destruction threats to a species.
The listing of a species is not evaluated on cost-effectiveness, but on
the best available scientific and commercial data available. The
ability to transplant a species has no bearing as to whether or not
that species warrants listing.
Comment: One commenter stated that Arizona Department of Water
Resources (1991) found that 50 percent of the water available in the
San Pedro basin is used by riparian vegetation. The commenter stated
that if the BLM would remove 60 percent of the trees in the basin,
there would be ample water to supply the needs of these three species
and many others.
Service Response: Clearing of riparian vegetation would be counter
to the purposes of the San Pedro River Riparian National Conservation
Area. In the legislation establishing the Conservation Area, the BLM
was charged with conservation, protection, and enhancement of the
riparian area. To clear the riparian vegetation for water salvage would
counter a Congressional mandate. As noted in Stromberg et al. (1996),
Bock and Bock (1986), McQueen and Miller (1972), Yavitt and Smith
(1983), and Dawson (1993), trees in a riparian system provide for
increased soil fertility and increased soil moisture as a result of
hydraulic lift and serve to temper environmental extremes such as
temperature. This function of the overstory in a riparian system is
likely to benefit Lilaeopsis. Therefore, the removal of this system
component could result in the loss of Lilaeopsis from the riparian area
once the soil fertility and moisture levels drop and temperature
extremes occur. In addition, riparian ecosystems are extremely
important to numerous other species. Removal of large numbers of trees
would damage other species' habitat and would not be a viable
conservation measure.
Comment: One commenter asked why the Service placed plants on the
Endangered Species list if the Act does not apply to plants on private
lands.
Service Response: Under the Act private landowners have essentially
no responsibilities regarding conservation or management of endangered
plants located on their property; however, the Act provides for
consultation by Federal entities under section 7 of the Act if their
actions may affect a listed plant, regardless of whether that plant
occurs on private or Federal lands. Therefore, while a private
landowner may not have responsibility to protect, conserve, or manage
for a listed plant, a Federal action agency is responsible if an action
it authorizes, funds, or carries out may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat.
Issue 2: Critical habitat should be proposed and designated for one
or more of the three species. The Service did not comply with its own
regulations when proposal of critical habitat was found to be not
determinable for the Sonora tiger salamander and Lilaeopsis. Critical
habitat designation is necessary to protect the habitat of these
species.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service failed to
follow its own regulations by not proposing critical habitat for all
three species in the proposed rule. Another commenter requested we
reissue the proposed rule with critical habitat proposed for all three
species, all areas known to be occupied by the species, all historical
habitat, and all areas that could be restored and reoccupied by the
species.
Service Response: The Service's position on critical habitat for
these species is detailed in the ``Critical Habitat'' section of this
final rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that collecting is a relatively minor
threat compared to other factors that threaten the survival and
recovery of Spiranthes; thus the benefits of critical habitat outweigh
the costs and critical habitat should be proposed. Another commenter
was concerned that protection of Spiranthes and its habitat would be
impossible without critical habitat designation. This commenter was
concerned that there would be a potential threat to Spiranthes from
continued livestock grazing of cienega habitats.
Service Response: The Service does not believe this potential
benefit of critical habitat designation outweighs the threat of
collection given the extreme rarity of this orchid. Due to this
species' cryptic nature, potential threats or impacts to its habitat
would be addressed within the consultation process. As this is a plant
species provided with a different, and lesser protection than an
animal, pursuant to section 9 of the Act, the Service would not address
continued use of a cienega as part of a livestock operation, except
through the consultation process, regardless of whether critical
habitat were designated or not. Additionally, preliminary indications
are that Spiranthes may benefit from a responsible land management plan
involving light disturbance from grazing.
Comment: Several commenters stated that habitat and species
protection and recovery afforded through consultation in accordance
with section 7 of the Act would be inadequate without critical habitat
designation.
Service Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal
agencies, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Interior and
Commerce, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. It is the opinion of the Service that the designation
of critical habitat for these three species would not be beneficial and
therefore, not prudent.
Issue 3: Economic, social, and cultural impacts of listing need to
be evaluated and considered in the listing process.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the Service study the
indirect and direct economic, social, and/or cultural effects of
listing these three species. Concern was expressed that listing of the
species would affect use and value of private property, result in
increased taxes and reduced investment in the local community, and
adversely affect grazing permittees on state and Federal lands. Some
commenters stated that the results of this analysis should be weighed
with threats, status, and other listing factors in determining whether
these species should be listed.
Service Response: 50 CFR 424.11(b) requires the Secretaries of the
Interior and Commerce to make decisions on listing based on ``the best
available scientific and commercial information regarding a species'
status, without
[[Page 672]]
reference to possible economic or other impacts of such
determination.'' The Service has determined that the designation of
critical habitat for these three species is not prudent.
Comment: One commenter stated that the listing and establishment of
critical habitat would give the Federal government control over water
use where the species occur. This commenter also stated that the
species and their critical habitat would be given a higher priority
than humans in a drought situation.
Service Response: Federal actions, such as groundwater use by Fort
Huachuca or actions by the BLM that may alter San Pedro River flows or
hydrology, would be subject to the section 7 consultation process,
which may result in changes to proposed actions to avoid jeopardizing
the continued existence of a listed species. (For further discussion,
see the ``Available Conservation Measures'' section of this final
rule.) Private actions would generally be exempt from the regulatory
provisions of the Act, unless Federal funds or authorization are
needed, or if the action would result in the taking of a Sonora tiger
salamander. In the latter case, a private party could seek a section
10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit to legally take salamanders
incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The Service is not proposing
or designating critical habitat in this rule. Designation of critical
habitat for these three species was determined to be not prudent (see
``Critical Habitat'' section).
Comment: One commenter stated that the listing of these species
would eliminate mineral exploration and exploitation in the unique and
rare Cananea geologic trend.
Service Response: The Service assumes the commenter refers to
mineralization, particularly copper deposits, in the quartz/monzonite/
porphyry/copper deposit belt in southeastern Arizona, southwestern New
Mexico, and adjacent portions of Mexico, including the copper deposits
near Cananea, Sonora. As discussed elsewhere herein, if mining
activities involved a discretionary Federal action, that action would
be subject to section 7 consultation. For instance, consultation could
result in modifications to mining plans of operation. Prospecting and
mining of hardrock minerals, such as copper, on Federal lands is
governed by the Mining Act of 1872 (16 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). Under this
law, Federal agencies have limited discretion over mining activities.
Thus, many activities would not be subject to section 7 consultation.
If mining might result in the taking of a Sonora tiger salamander, this
take could be permitted through the incidental take statement in a
section 7 consultation for Federal actions, or through a section
10(a)(1)(B) permit for private actions. The listing would not affect
mining activities in Mexico. The Service is unaware of any current or
proposed copper mines or other mineral mines in the quartz/monzonite/
porphyry/copper deposit belt in Arizona or New Mexico that may affect
any of the three species. These listings would not eliminate mineral
exploration and exploitation of the quartz/monzonite/porphyry/copper
deposit belt.
Comment: One commenter stated that the impact of this listing would
decimate the Babacomari Ranch's historical livestock operation along
the Babacomari River and would eliminate this viable agricultural
enterprise.
Service Response: Involvement with the Service regarding operation
of this ranch would only occur within the context of the consultation
process if a Federal action agency were to fund, authorize, or carry
out an activity related to the operation of the ranch, or if the ranch
owners wished to work with the Service on voluntary conservation
actions. While the Service does not analyze economic effects of a
listing action, it is not anticipated that the listing of Spiranthes
will have an adverse effect on the ranching operations.
Comment: Commenters stated that the Service intends to close Fort
Huachuca and undermine the local economy and well-being of citizens
with these listings. The listings will result in a cessation of Federal
highway funds and home mortgages in Sierra Vista. Another commenter
stated that the proposed listing of these three species was an attempt
to halt growth, grazing, and multiple use of public and private lands.
One commenter reported hearsay that it was the intent of the Service to
control the water and lives of the people with this listing, which is
an inappropriate purpose of the listing process.
Service Response: The purpose of these listings is to extend the
protection of the Act to the Sonora tiger salamander, Lilaeopsis, and
Spiranthes. This protection does not authorize the Service to close
Fort Huachuca or assert jurisdiction over water rights, and the Service
does not anticipate significant impacts to local economies or to the
well-being of citizens. As described in ``Available Conservation
Measures'' herein, with the promulgation of this rule, Federal
agencies, including Fort Huachuca and those that administer Federal
highway funds and Federal loans, will be required to comply with
section 7 of the Act to ensure their activities do not jeopardize the
continued existence of these species. Consultations with Federal
agencies, such as the Coronado National Forest, Fort Huachuca, and
others, may result in changes to proposed actions that are at the
discretion of the action agency. For instance, in accordance with
section 7, the Coronado National Forest has conferenced with the
Service on proposed reissuance of several grazing permits within the
range of the Sonora tiger salamander. The Service has recommended that
the Forest develop and implement stock tank management plans for tanks
supporting salamanders. These plans would include timing maintenance
activities to reduce effects to salamanders, minimizing removal or
damage to bankline cover, adding brush and logs for cover, restricting
access by cattle to selected tanks or portions of tanks, public
information, and monitoring and periodic removal of nonnative
predators. Similar outcomes are expected from future formal section 7
consultations for all three species. Further discussion of water issues
are addressed in the following comments.
Comment: One commenter stated that a moratorium on the pumping of
groundwater would be financially devastating to families.
Service Response: As discussed elsewhere, pumping of groundwater or
other actions by private individuals on private lands would not be
affected by this listing, with the possible exception of groundwater
pumping that would drain a stock tank occupied by Sonora tiger
salamanders and result in taking, or other activities that might result
in the taking of salamanders. The Service is unaware of any planned or
ongoing groundwater pumping anywhere within the range of the Sonora
tiger salamander that would result in taking. If such an action were
proposed, the proponent could seek authorization from the Service for
an incidental take permit. If groundwater pumping involves a Federal
authorization, funding, or other discretionary Federal action, that
pumping would be subject to section 7 consultation if the action may
affect a listed species.
Comment: One commenter noted that the listing of these species will
complicate the issues surrounding the general adjudication. In
particular, this commenter believed it would add another obstacle to
reaching a negotiated settlement of some water rights with Federal
agencies.
Service Response: A general adjudication of water rights in the
Gila River system and its source is
[[Page 673]]
underway, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes 45-251 to 45-260. This
adjudication includes the San Pedro River watershed. Major water rights
holders, particularly in the Sierra Vista subwatershed (in the river's
watershed from Fairbank to the international border), are attempting to
negotiate a settlement agreement. Listing of these three species would
not directly affect water rights. Uses of water may be subject to
section 7 consultation if such use involves a discretionary Federal
action. Subsequent enforcement actions in regard to take of Sonora
tiger salamanders could potentially also result in the modification or
cessation of water use at specific sites, but the salamander occurs
almost exclusively outside of the subwatershed. Although water rights
are not directly affected by these listings, the Service agrees that
listing could be a factor in the issues surrounding the settlement
negotiations. The Service is involved in the negotiations and is likely
to be a party to any settlement agreement. Compliance with the Act in
regard to water use may be addressed in the agreement, and thus could
provide a framework for addressing endangered species issues to which
all parties to the agreement would have input. Of the three species
listed, only Lilaeopsis is well-represented in the subwatershed.
Comment: One commenter stated that, as a result of this listing,
the section 7 consultation process will add time and expense to any
urbanization project.
Service Response: If a Federal agency is involved in urbanization,
it would need to evaluate its actions and possible effects on listed
species. The Service is required to deliver a biological opinion, which
concludes consultation, to the action agency within 135 days of receipt
of a request for consultation (50 CFR 402.14(e)). If the action agency
incorporates consultation into their planning process and consultation
is initiated early, project delays are unlikely. Some additional costs
may accrue resulting from meetings with the Service, preparation of
documents, and implementation of any reasonable and prudent
alternatives or measures in the biological opinion. Private actions
that do not require Federal funds, actions, or authorization, such as a
private individual building a house with private funds, are not subject
to section 7.
Issue 4: Information presented in the proposed rule was
insufficient to support listing or was in error.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the status and population
trends of Spiranthes cannot be determined because population size is
unknown and cannot be accurately determined because an unknown
percentage of plants are dormant and nonflowering plants are difficult
to find.
Service Response: While the Service believes that additional long-
term studies are needed to more accurately determine the stability of
Spiranthes populations, data as a result of monitoring suggest that the
populations may be declining based on the tendency of plants to remain
in a nonflowering state, the low numbers of new flowering plants, and
the reduction to a single nonflowering individual at one site in 1991
(McClaren and Sundt 1992, Newman 1991). The definitive answers on
population biology that the commenters believe necessary would involve
destructive methodology in order to determine the exact number of
plants and percentages of absent individuals. Such a destructive
methodology would be devastating to an extremely rare species such as
this one and could result in the extirpation of some populations. Mark
Fishbein (University of Arizona, in litt. 1996), a researcher who has
studied Spiranthes extensively, notes that the life history of this
species provides difficulties in censusing; however, years of
observation have enabled him to estimate the total number of
individuals at somewhere below 5,000, and perhaps less than 2,000.
Comment: Several commenters stated that surveys for the Sonora
tiger salamander have not been extensive enough to adequately determine
its status. Many potential habitat sites on private lands have not been
surveyed and the taxonomy of salamanders found in adjacent portions of
Sonora needs to be clarified. The recent discovery of a population at
Fort Huachuca suggests the range of the species may be greater than
originally thought. The salamander is thriving in stock tanks.
Service Response: Additional survey work conducted since the
proposed rule was published further clarifies the status of the Sonora
tiger salamander (Collins 1996) and is summarized in ``Background'' and
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.'' As of late 1995, Dr.
James Collins (Arizona State University) and Tom Jones (Grand Canyon
University) (pers. comm. 1995) estimated that roughly 75 percent of
public lands within the range of the salamander had been surveyed.
Additional extensive surveys occurred in 1996. Surveys of private
lands, most of which are in the center of the San Rafael Valley on the
historic San Rafael de la Zanja land grant and comprise about 31
percent of the range of the salamander, have been sporadic and
incomplete. The Service estimates that perhaps 60 percent of lands
within the range of the salamander have been thoroughly surveyed. If we
consider the 23 sites where salamanders have been found during one or
more of the last three visits from 1993 through 1996 as extant
populations, and if breeding populations occur on unsurveyed lands in a
density similar to surveyed lands, then conceivably as many as 35 to 40
``extant'' breeding populations could exist in Arizona. Regardless, a
limited geographic range, very limited breeding habitat, and threats to
the species described herein warrant protection as an endangered
species.
The Service agrees that the taxonomy of the tiger salamander
population at Los Fresnos in Sonora should be clarified; however,
presence of Sonora tiger salamanders at this site is not unexpected
(the salamander locality at Los Fresnos is within 1.3 mi (2.2 km) of
the international boundary and 2.2 mi (3.6 km) of three extant
localities in Arizona). The recently discovered population at Fort
Huachuca also is not unexpected. It is approximately 1.4 mi (2.2 km)
west of a salamander locality (presumed to be the Sonora tiger
salamander) in Scotia Canyon. Neither of these new populations
constitute significant range extensions, or lead the Service to believe
that the range of the salamander is much greater than indicated in the
proposed rule. Other potential habitats have been surveyed outside of
the known range in Arizona and Sonora, but no Sonora tiger salamanders
have been found (Collins and Jones 1987).
The Service disagrees with the general statement that the
salamander is thriving in stock tanks. Many tanks within the range of
the salamander are occupied by nonnative predatory fish that eliminate
salamander populations and prevent colonization by salamanders.
Bullfrogs, which also prey on salamanders, are well-established in the
San Rafael Valley and have become more widely distributed since 1985
(Collins 1996). Virtually no recruitment of salamanders was noted by
Collins (1996) during his surveys in 1993-1994. Furthermore, disease
killed all aquatic salamanders at 3 tanks in the 1980's and recently
killed salamanders at 7 tanks, and less than 10 salamanders were found
during any 1 visit at 16 of 32 sites surveyed from 1993 through 1996
(James Collins, pers. comm. 1996).
Comment: Commenters stated that data are inadequate to determine
the status of any of the three species. The information upon which the
proposed listing is based is subjective and premised by qualifiers such
as ``might be,'' ``may,'' etc. One commenter stated
[[Page 674]]
that presumptions rather than science were the basis for listing. The
same information could be interpreted that the species are not
endangered.
Service Response: All three species are of very limited
distribution and occupy very limited and sensitive aquatic habitats.
The reasons for their limited distributions are not fully understood;
however, the Service has attempted to describe all known and potential
threats to the species in the proposed and final rules. Potential
threats are described as possibly affecting the species and are treated
as uncertainties, with qualifiers such as ``may'' and ``might be.''
Despite these uncertainties, sufficient surveys have been conducted to
adequately assess the current status of the species and whether they
warrant listing. The Service makes listing determinations on the basis
of the best scientific and commercial data available as required under
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Comment: One commenter stated that the status of the species cannot
be determined without further study and survey in Mexico.
Service Response: Collins and Jones (1987) surveyed 30 sites in
northeastern Sonora and 26 sites along the eastern slope of the Sierra
Madre Occidental in northwestern Chihuahua without locating Sonora
tiger salamanders. Other researchers have conducted casual surveys for
salamanders in northern Sonora as well, without finding Sonora tiger
salamanders, with the exception of the tiger salamander population of
unknown subspecies at Los Fresnos. The Service believes that if the
salamander occurs in Sonora, it probably has a limited distribution and
occurs at very few sites. The species is most likely to occur in tanks
or cienegas near the international boundary in the Sonoran portion of
the San Rafael Valley.
Three populations of Lilaeopsis are known from Sonora (Warren, et
al. 1991); however, recent efforts have failed to locate additional
populations of this subspecies. Mark Fishbein (University of Arizona,
in litt. 1995) has conducted extensive floristic surveys of the Sierra
de los Ajos (site of one recently-discovered Lilaeopsis population
reported herein) and believes the potential for additional new
populations in that region to be low, although not all potential
habitat for the species has been surveyed. Fishbein also notes that
threats to wetland habitats in Mexico are similar to those in Arizona
and, therefore, Lilaeopsis is probably as rare and threatened there as
it is in Arizona.
Surveys for Spiranthes species in Mexico have not located
populations of Spiranthes delitescens. While Sheviak (1990) noted that
P.M. Catling had not found Spiranthes delitescens in his work in
Mexico, Sheviak still believed that the species likely occurred in
Mexico at that time. Recently, Charles Sheviak (University of New York
at Albany, in litt. 1995) stated that the species appears `` * * * to
be very restricted and critically rare.'' Jones, et al. (1995), in a
discussion on the phylogenetic origins and taxonomy of the Sonora tiger
salamander, also note the unique occurrences of Spiranthes and the
Huachuca springsnail (Pyrgulopsis thompsoni) within the San Rafael
Valley. Sheviak (in litt. 1995) noted in reference to this publication
that it ``* * * suggests that this restricted distribution is real and
the result of biogeographic processes that have produced a suite of
similarly restricted organisms.''
Comment: One commenter stated that Lilaeopsis populations are
increasing, thus endangered status is not warranted.
Service Response: The size of Lilaeopsis populations fluctuate
depending on flood cycles, refugia, habitat availability, and
interspecific competition. Since publication of the proposed rule, some
populations of Lilaeopsis have been found to be more extensive in their
aquatic systems, i.e. scattered throughout a canyon system or in
upstream tributaries; however, only one new population has been found.
The other populations to which the commenter is referring are actually
new areas of clumps of plants within a larger, connected system already
known to contain Lilaeopsis. Probably the most extensive expansion of
Lilaeopsis in a system has been within the upper San Pedro River. At
the time of the proposed rule, the Service only knew of two springs
along the San Pedro River containing Lilaeopsis. Mark Fredlake (BLM,
pers. comm. 1996) documented 43 scattered patches of plants in the
upper San Pedro River prior to the 1996 monsoon floods. Regardless of
this information, the Service has not seen a reduction in threats to
Lilaeopsis. Past and present habitat modification and destruction are
significant issues in the Service decision to list Lilaeopsis as
endangered.
Comment: Spiranthes is not endangered. It has existed for years on
mostly Federal grazing lands that have been well-managed by permittees.
Service Response: With the exception of four individual plants
recently found on public lands, all of the known sites for Spiranthes
occur on private land.
Comment: AGFD herpetologist Jeff Howland is cited in the proposed
rule as the source for the Sonora tiger salamander localities in Scotia
and Copper canyons. Mr. Howland has not identified the salamanders at
these locales to subspecies; thus, these localities are in question.
Service Response: The Copper Canyon locality is the same as ``Game
and Fish Tank,'' which Collins (1996) identifies as a Sonora tiger
salamander locality. Salamanders from Scotia Canyon have not yet been
identified to subspecies. This has been noted and corrected in this
final rule.
Comment: One commenter noted that loss of Lilaeopsis habitat was
the result of natural rather than human-caused processes. This
commenter further stated that the San Pedro River and cienega habitats
have been altered by natural climatic change, the 1887 earthquake, and
cattle. The commenter stated that these changes were primarily the
result of the geologic cycle and did not warrant listing Lilaeopsis as
an endangered species. The commenter further stated that Lilaeopsis
habitats were stable, but would now be subject to lawsuits by radical
environmentalists and unknown decisions by judges.
Service Response: The Service is unaware of evidence supporting the
comment that natural geologic cycles are the cause behind the
modification and loss of cienega and riparian habitats containing
Lilaeopsis. The 1887 earthquake affected the distribution of cienega
habitats and spring flow along the upper San Pedro River (Hendrickson
and Minckley 1984), but whether Lilaeopsis habitats increased or
decreased as a result of the earthquake is unknown. Documented loss of
Lilaeopsis habitat has resulted from habitat modification and
destruction resulting from human-related activities; however, there has
been a synergistic effect of overuse of habitats coupled with drought.
The Service is unaware of long-term research indicating that Lilaeopsis
habitats are stable. The Service is unable to predict the extent (if
any) that Lilaeopsis habitats will now be subject to legal actions;
however, we believe that cooperative partnerships to help conserve and
restore riparian habitats will provide a positive basis for community
interaction in the recovery of Lilaeopsis.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Service provide the
mathematical equation used in determining whether or not a species is
endangered.
Service Response: No equation, mathematical or otherwise, is used
to determine a species' status. An
[[Page 675]]
endangered species is one that is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range (50 CFR 424.02(e)).
Determination of whether a taxon meets the definition of an endangered
species is based on the best scientific and commercial data available
after conducting a review of the species' status. Species are found to
be threatened or endangered based on an analysis of the five listing
factors evaluated in the section ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species,'' herein.
Comment: One commenter found that the Service failed to prove these
species are declining and also failed to establish that they perform
vital biological services for their ecosystem, are necessary to
maintain a balance of nature, or that they contribute to biological
diversity needed for legitimate scientific purposes.
Service Response: As described in the previous response, the Act
and its implementing regulations require status review and analyses to
determine if species meet the definition of a threatened or endangered
species. Documented declines are one line of evidence that may
contribute to a decision to list a species; other factors may be
important. Documented declines are not a requirement for listing.
Neither do endangered species need not perform vital biological
functions for their ecosystems or contribute to biological diversity
(section 4(a) and 4(b) of the Act).
Comment: One commenter questioned the historical reference to
habitat qualities of the Santa Cruz River and stated that the river is
still a ``rapid brook, clear and crystal'' now, following heavy rains.
Service Response: The Service searched historical references to
provide answers to the specific questions and has fully incorporated
that information into the rule; however, the Service is unaware of any
instances where the reach of the Santa Cruz River near Tucson presently
meets the historical habitat description.
Comment: One commenter stated that information provided in the
notice was not the result of scientific research nor did any of the
persons referenced in the notice have scientific training or expertise.
Another commenter stated that the Service either misrepresented the
best scientific and commercial data available or ignored these data
altogether.
Service Response: The Service considered all known sources of
information in its decisions to list these species. As required in 50
CFR 424.11(b), the best scientific and commercial data available formed
the basis for these decisions. These data included published and
unpublished reports by qualified and reputable biologists, personal
communications with researchers and biologists, and comments from the
public. For instance, much of the status information on the Sonora
tiger salamander is based on papers by, and communications with, Drs.
James Collins and Thomas Jones. Dr. Collins is chair of the Zoology
Department at Arizona State University. Dr. Jones is a professor at
Grand Canyon University.
The published and unpublished data supporting listing of Lilaeopsis
and Spiranthes were the result of the work of a number of experienced
biologists recognized in their fields. Much of the literature cited in
the proposed and final rule was published in peer reviewed scientific
journals. Peer reviewed scientific journals provide a level of scrutiny
that ensures publication of the best information available.
Issue 5: Threats to the three species were not adequately described
or supported by the best available information. In some cases, the
discussions of threats or other information presented in the proposed
rule were confusing, unclear, and contradictory to available
information.
Comment: One commenter questioned the reference to a loss of 90
percent of the riparian habitat in southern Arizona. This commenter
stated that the loss figure was extrapolated from a study of
cottonwood-willow habitat along the Colorado River in the Yuma area and
does not represent an actual inventory of historical riparian areas in
the Arizona. Another commenter also stated that this figure was
inaccurate.
Service Response: The proposed rule stated ``The State of Arizona
(1990) estimates that up to 90 percent of the riparian habitat along
Arizona's major desert watercourses has been lost, degraded, or altered
in historic times.'' The Service believes this is an accurate
statement. The exact percentage of riparian habitat lost, degraded, or
altered cannot be determined, because knowledge of predevelopment
conditions is often anecdotal or incomplete. However, numerous factors
have cumulatively resulted in habitat loss and degradation throughout
most of the major desert watercourses in Arizona, particularly the
Colorado, Gila, Salt, Santa Cruz, and Verde rivers. These include--
introduction of nonnative plants, such as salt cedar (Tamarix spp.);
carrizo (Phragmites australis), and watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-
aquaticum); construction and operation of dams, which have altered flow
and flooding regimes, sedimentation, water temperatures, and channel
characteristics; water withdrawals; channelization; and construction of
levees and other flood or bankline structures.
In contrast, the riparian habitats of the San Pedro River are
surprisingly unaltered, and provide conditions that do not occur, or
are very rare, on other desert watercourses. Thus there is great
biodiversity on this river and many rare species, such as Lilaeopsis,
occur there.
Comment: One commenter stated that there were no significant
current threats to any of these species in the San Rafael Valley with
the exception of potential unmonitored and increased recreation that
could cause habitat degradation.
Service Response: As discussed in the ``Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species'' section, threats to the species in the San
Rafael Valley are many. The Service acknowledges that recreational
activities, such as off-road vehicle use, fishing that would involve
illegal use or transportation of bait fish or salamanders, fire caused
by recreationists and subsequent watershed erosion and degradation,
wood cutting, and other activities are threats to the Sonora tiger
salamander, Lilaeopsis, and/or Spiranthes, in and near the San Rafael
Valley. However, these species face many other threats in the San
Rafael Valley, as well. As discussed herein, all three species are
vulnerable to chance extinction owing to limited numbers of populations
and individuals, and climatic and other environmental variability. The
Sonora tiger salamander is threatened by introduction of nonnative
predators, disease, habitat degradation due to heavy use by livestock
at some tanks, and a variety of other factors, all of which operate in
the San Rafael Valley. Subdivision of ranches into ranchettes or
housing tracts is an additional threat to all three species within the
San Rafael Valley. Subdivision could result in fragmentation of cienega
habitats and increased groundwater pumping.
Comment: One commenter stated that discussions of threats to the
Sonora tiger salamander described by the Service at the Patagonia
public hearing and in the proposed rule differed. In particular, the
proposed rule indicated the salamander faced many more serious threats
than were indicated at the public hearing.
Service Response: The Service's presentation at Patagonia on the
proposed listing was abbreviated to allot as much time as possible to
hear public comment. Rather than discuss all known or potential threats
in detail, the Service presented an overview of the status of the taxa
based on information in the proposed rule.
[[Page 676]]
Comment: One commenter stated that two of the three species are
abundant and not in peril in Mexico, and therefore listing is not
warranted.
Service Response: Neither Spiranthes nor the Sonora tiger
salamander have been confirmed from Mexico, although a population of
tiger salamanders suspected to be of the subspecies stebbinsi was
observed at Los Fresnos, Sonora. Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva
is known from three sites in Sonora; all of these sites face similar
threats to those north of the international border, in the United
States.
Comment: One commenter stated that Lilaeopsis occurs in some areas
without perennial flows and with a regulated hydrograph, contrary to
information presented in the proposed rule.
Service Response: The Service is unaware of any sites containing
Lilaeopsis that do not have perennial flows.
Comment: One commenter believed statements in the proposed rule
suggesting development in the upper San Pedro River Valley will result
in increased erosion and other detrimental hydrologic effects are
inaccurate and unsupported.
Service Response: Development can result in elevated runoff rates,
such as from parking lots and roadways, and increased erodibility of
soils due to soil disturbance, removal of vegetation, and disturbance
of natural drainageways. Increased runoff rates and erosion in the
Sierra Vista subwatershed can lead to more frequent ``flash'' floods
and deposition and movement of sediment in the San Pedro River. This
increased hydrologic instability would be detrimental to Lilaeopsis,
which does not tolerate high levels of disturbance or channel
instability. Additionally, flash floods could scour existing Lilaeopsis
out of the system and could occur with frequency or intensity that
would not allow for refugia sites for Lilaeopsis and subsequent
recolonization.
The city of Sierra Vista has adopted a Surface Water Plan to
address regional management of surface runoff. The plan includes
construction of flood detention/retention basins at 30 locations (ASL
Hydrologic & Engineering Services (ASL) 1995). New construction also
includes provisions for stormwater retention and increased
infiltration. Fort Huachuca also is investigating stormwater recharge
as a part of their Mountain Front Recharge Project (Fort Huachuca
1995). However, development is occurring outside of the Sierra Vista/
Fort Huachuca areas without these same controls, the city's plan has
not been fully implemented, and the Fort is in the planning stages.
Thus, the Service still considers erosion caused by development in the
watershed a threat to the habitat of Lilaeopsis in the San Pedro River.
Comment: One commenter stated that, contrary to statements in the
proposed rule, stock tank maintenance is beneficial to the Sonora tiger
salamander because it removes nonnative fish. Concern also was
expressed that listing would result in removal of grazing and cessation
of stock tank maintenance. Another commenter stated that habitat
conditions for these species, especially the salamander, have improved
in the past 30 years because landowners have directly benefitted and
increased the extent of habitat through stock tank construction.
Service Response: Maintenance of the tanks is necessary not only to
preserve their value for livestock but also to benefit salamander
populations. Tanks would silt in and aquatic habitats would be lost
without periodic maintenance. The Service acknowledges that maintenance
also may help remove nonnative fish species that prey upon the Sonora
tiger salamander. Silt is typically removed from tanks when they are
dry or nearly dry. Remaining fish might be dredged out of the tanks or
killed during silt removal. As described in the proposed rule,
salamanders present in the tanks would probably also be killed. The
Service believes that certain mitigating precautions are possible to
reduce adverse effects to salamander populations resulting from removal
of silt or other maintenance activities. These mitigation measures will
be addressed through the section 7 consultation process and in recovery
planning. As discussed elsewhere in this final rule, the Service
believes well-managed livestock grazing is compatible with viable
salamander populations. Thus, listing will not result in removal of
grazing or the need for well-maintained water sources, such as stock
tanks.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the analysis of threats in
the proposed rule did not take into account efforts by the City of
Sierra Vista and the town of Patagonia to maintain flows in the San
Pedro River and Sonoita Creek, respectively. Groundwater pumping by
Patagonia does not affect Sonoita Creek. One commenter stated that the
Service had been contemptuous and arrogant by not documenting in the
proposed rule the City of Sierra Vista's efforts to protect the
riparian habitat of the San Pedro River.
Service Response: The ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
section'' has been revised to include efforts by the City of Sierra
Vista and Fort Huachuca to maintain flows in the San Pedro River. The
proposed rule did not specifically mention groundwater pumping by the
Town of Patagonia as a threat to any of the three species. However, the
Service acknowledges and appreciates efforts by the Town of Patagonia
to avoid possible adverse effects to listed species and to maintain
flows in Sonoita Creek.
Comment: One commenter stated that testimony by Dr. Thomas Maddox,
Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona,
refutes information presented in the proposed rule in regard to the
effects of groundwater pumping on the San Pedro River. Another
commenter noted that Maddock and Vionnet (1991) found that ``the mean
depletion rate of the regional aquifer in the Sierra Vista area from
pumping is very small and that pumping from the regional aquifer is not
the major factor imperilling stream flow.'' This commenter also stated
that the conservation measures for recharge and reuse of sewage
effluent recommended in this study will not be implemented if the
listing process is finalized. One commenter stated that groundwater
pumping does not pose an immediate threat to populations of Lilaeopsis
at Lewis Spring and south of Boquillas Road.
Service Response: The point of the Service's discussion in the
proposed and final rules in regard to groundwater pumping in the Sierra
Vista subwatershed is that withdrawal of water from the aquifer in
excess of recharge threatens the baseflow of the upper San Pedro River
and, in turn, threatens Lilaeopsis habitat. Nothing in Dr. Maddox's
testimony nor in Maddock and Vionnet (1991) refute this claim. On page
46 of Dr. Maddock's testimony he states that if pumping continues ``the
cone of depression continues to expand. It actually turns the stream
(the San Pedro River), which is in some cases perennial in the reaches,
to intermittent.'' On pages 65 and 66 of the testimony he states that
if pumping continues the San Pedro River may become like reaches of the
Santa Cruz River that are now dry and devoid of riparian vegetation due
to groundwater pumping. He goes on to say on page 84 of the testimony
that during the period of his study, groundwater pumping in the
Palominas area had reversed the flow of groundwater so that the
groundwater was flowing to the cone of depression there, rather than
into the San Pedro River, which directly reduced river flows.
[[Page 677]]
Much of the pumping in the Palominas area has been halted in recent
years, and this condition may have changed. However, it illustrates the
potential that groundwater pumping has to affect flows in the San Pedro
River. The problem is not trivial. ASL (1995) calculated that the cone
of depression in the Sierra Vista/Fort Huachuca area in 1995 was in
excess of 36.6 m (120 ft) deep with drawdown levels of more than 6.1 m
(20 ft) extending from north of Huachuca City and the Babacomari River
to well south of Highway 90, a distance of approximately 18 km (11 mi).
Water and Environmental Systems Technology, Inc. (1994) estimated that
even if all pumping stopped in the Sierra Vista/Fort Huachuca area, the
cone of depression would continue to spread toward the river as it
flattened out and river flows would continue to decline through the
year 2088.
Groundwater modeling indicates that effects to upper San Pedro
River baseflows may not occur for 25 years or more (ASL 1995), thus the
Service concurs that groundwater pumping in the Sierra Vista/Fort
Huachuca area does not pose an immediate threat to Lilaeopsis. However,
adverse effects are likely to occur in the foreseeable future unless
mitigating actions are implemented very soon. These measures could
include water conservation, effluent recharge, watershed improvements,
stormwater recharge, and others, many of which are in the planning
stages or are being implemented to some degree in the subwatershed.
Modeling suggests that if effluent recharge and other measures are
implemented, flows may actually increase in some reaches over the next
100 years (ASL 1995, Water and Environmental Systems Technology, Inc.
1994). However, in the long term, unless water withdrawals are brought
into balance with recharge, growing cones of depression will eventually
capture effluent recharge and river flows, and Lilaeopsis habitat in
the San Pedro River will be lost.
Groundwater elevation has already declined under portions of the
Babocomari River (ASL 1995), thus Spiranthes occurring on that river
may also be threatened in the long-term, The Service is unaware of
studies or modeling that specifically addresses areas where the species
occurs. Loss of Lilaeopsis on the San Pedro River and Spiranthes on the
Babocomari River would not, alone, likely result in the extinction of
these species. However, loss of these populations and habitats would
significantly increase the likelihood of extinction and substantially
reduce or preclude recovery options.
The Service does not believe that listing these three species will
result in the City of Sierra Vista, Fort Huachuca or others in the
Sierra Vista subwatershed abandoning efforts to reduce water use and
increase recharge. These efforts are probably driven by projected
increased pumping costs as groundwater elevations decline, the Gila
River water rights adjudication, and other considerations. To the
contrary, efforts by the City of Sierra Vista, Fort Huachuca, and other
water users to conserve water, develop effluent recharge, enhance
mountain front recharge, etc., complement actions to recover Lilaeopsis
and Spiranthes.
Comment: Several commenters stated that, contrary to information
presented in the proposed rule, livestock grazing is not detrimental to
Spiranthes. Populations in grazed areas are larger and healthier than
at a site where grazing has been excluded since 1969. Grazing may have
replaced fire as a form of disturbance in cienegas. Removing or
restricting grazing would be detrimental to Spiranthes.
Service Response: Discussions of well-managed livestock grazing and
Spiranthes presented in the proposed rule did not indicate a
detrimental effect. The Service stated that our preliminary conclusion
is that well-managed livestock grazing does not harm Spiranthes
populations. Additionally, the Service acknowledges that Spiranthes may
favor some form of mild disturbance and would not recommend the removal
of grazing as a component of responsible stewardship. However, negative
effects of overgrazing remain a concern. The Service has tried to
differentiate responsible, well-managed, livestock grazing from poor
livestock management and overgrazing.
Comment: One commenter stated that the following statement in the
proposed rule is incorrect; groundwater pumping in the Hereford-
Palominas area has the largest impact on the aquifer of any groundwater
pumping in the upper San Pedro River basin.
Service Response: Wells in the Hereford-Palominas area are or were
located in the floodplain of the San Pedro River and draw water
directly from the shallow aquifer and, in some cases, from deeper
regional aquifers. Wells farther from the river, such as those at Fort
Huachuca, draw water from deep aquifers, and not directly from the
floodplain aquifer. Wells that draw water from the floodplain aquifer
are more likely to directly affect river flow, but wells elsewhere in
the watershed may intercept groundwater flow that would otherwise be
discharged to the floodplain aquifer (ASL 1994). As of 1990, pumping in
the Palominas-Hereford area exceeded slightly that in the Sierra Vista-
Fort Huachuca area (ASL 1994, Arizona Department of Water Resources
1991). Pumping at Palominas-Hereford has probably declined since then,
while pumping at Sierra Vista-Fort Huachuca has likely increased, but
the former would still be the major impact on the floodplain aquifer
because it extracts water primarily from that aquifer, whereas water
pumped in the Sierra Vista-Fort Huachuca area comes from deeper
aquifers.
Comment: One commenter stated that the drying of stock tanks
inhabited by Sonora tiger salamanders is not a serious threat because
the larval salamanders metamorphose and return to breed when the tanks
refill.
Service Response: If tanks dry out slowly, some salamanders will
metamorphose into terrestrial adults and leave the tank. Young larval
salamanders, perhaps less than 6 months of age, and some branchiate
salamanders (mature aquatic forms), particularly older branchiates, are
incapable of metamorphosing into a terrestrial form and would be lost.
The percentage of aquatic salamanders lost when a tank dries out would
depend on the age structure of the population and the dryness of the
season. If a tank dried during May or June, which is the dry season in
the San Rafael Valley, most or all salamanders hatched that spring
would not be able to metamorphose. Survival of salamanders during
metamorphosis or after they leave the tank is unknown, but predation of
larvae may be high as water levels decline (Webb and Roueche 1971). If
aquatic habitat in a tank is lost rapidly due to sedimentation after a
storm or breaching of the impoundment, salamanders would not be capable
of metamorphosing into terrestrial forms and all aquatic salamanders
would be lost. Terrestrial adults in the area may return to the tank
when it refills, breed, and repopulate the tank with larvae and
branchiates. This has apparently occurred at several sites, including
Campini Mesa North Tank, Huachuca Tank, Parker Canyon Tank #1, and Inez
Tank; (Collins 1996, Collins et al. 1988). However, as noted in the
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section, if a tank were
dry for several years and isolated from other salamander populations,
insufficient terrestrial salamanders may remain and immigration from
other populations may be inadequate to recolonize a tank. In any case,
drying of a tank and loss of
[[Page 678]]
any salamanders may reduce the number of breeding individuals and
further reduce genetic heterogeneity, which is very low in this
subspecies. Further reduction of genetic diversity increases the chance
of local extirpations, as described in ``Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species'' section. The Service acknowledges, and discussions herein
have been modified, to recognize that drying of tanks can control some
nonnative predators, particularly fish.
Comment: One commenter recommended not listing Spiranthes because
endangered status will increase the demand for specimens and result in
increased collecting pressure.
Service Response: The Service acknowledges that listing could
potentially increase demand for specimens; however, the Service
believes that the benefits of listing Spiranthes outweigh any
additional potential collecting pressures that listing may create.
Comment: One commenter stated that the three species have coexisted
with cattle grazing for over 300 years, and historical grazing
intensity was much greater than it is today. As a result, cattle
grazing cannot be a threat. Another commenter stated that studies have
shown salamander populations decline when grazing is halted.
Service Response: The Service acknowledges that these species have
coexisted with cattle grazing for up to 300 years. At times in the past
and in certain areas, stocking levels were much greater than today
(Hadley and Sheridan 1995). However, we disagree that this long
coexistence is evidence that cattle grazing has no adverse effects and
does not threaten these species. As discussed in the ``Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species,'' the effects of improper cattle grazing
practices on these species are many, and depending on the species and
the circumstances, may have varying impacts on the three species. The
Service is unaware of any studies that found salamander populations
declined when grazing was halted. With the exception of the population
at Fort Huachuca, the entire range of the salamander has been grazed by
cattle for many years.
Comment: One commenter suggested that declining salamander
populations may be attributable to predation by various birds and
mammals rather than factors indicated in the proposed rule.
Service Response: Predation by coyotes, bobcats (Webb and Roueche
1971), badgers (Long 1964), raccoons, gulls, and wading birds
(Degenhardt et al. 1996) has been documented for other subspecies of
tiger salamander, and predation by a variety of birds and mammals
likely contributes to mortality of Sonora tiger salamanders. However,
population declines and extirpations of this subspecies have not been
attributed to bird and mammal predation; the most apparent and direct
causes are predation by nonnative fish and mortality due to disease
(Collins and Jones 1987, Collins 1996).
Comment: The species are not adversely affected by threats because
they are capable of moving to other locations.
Service Response: All three species have limited distributions and
are found only in rare wetland habitats with very specific
characteristics. For instance, aquatic populations of the Sonora tiger
salamander only occur in stock tanks and impounded cienegas in the San
Rafael Valley and adjacent areas where nonnative predators are rare or
absent and other subspecies of salamander are absent. The salamander
possesses limited mobility and may not be able to move outside of its
current range due to competition and/or interbreeding with other
subspecies or for other reasons.
Spiranthes has an extremely limited distribution that may be the
result of a unique evolutionary history in the San Rafael Valley as
discussed previously in this rule. There are few sites remaining that
may be capable of supporting a population, were the species able to
colonize them.
The ability of Lilaeopsis to colonize new areas within an aquatic
system is dependent on the availability of habitat and the existence of
refugia within that system. This has been discussed previously in this
final rule. None of these three species are able to move to other
locations when threats occur. The species cannot move elsewhere because
there are few, if any, suitable habitats to which they can move with
limited mobility.
Comment: One commenter stated that it made no sense to reestablish
Lilaeopsis in the San Pedro River as that habitat is subject to
scouring and flooding and would not be an appropriate habitat.
Service Response: Various microsites providing refugia for
Lilaeopsis along the San Pedro River have enabled this plant to
reestablish itself within the main channel in areas providing
appropriate habitat.
The experts referenced in the proposed rule are reputable
biologists with an extensive knowledge of Spiranthes. The extent of
their qualifications as fire ecologists is unknown to the Service;
however, as these experts (McClaren, Sundt, Gori, and Fishbein) are
taxonomists and ecologists with recognition in their fields, the
Service sees no reason to question their expertise because data on the
effects of fire is inconclusive at this time.
Comment: One commenter stated that consumptive water use by sand
and gravel operations was inadequately evaluated. The commenter stated
that the Service has no substantive evidence that sand and gravel
mining and processing could cause Spiranthes or Lilaeopsis habitat or
population losses either upstream or downstream of a mining operation.
The commenter further added that the Service failed to provide
information on how sand and gravel mining at the Babacomari Ranch could
affect at least one Spiranthes population.
Service Response: Mining of sand and gravel within riparian systems
can destabilize stream banks and channels, resulting in loss of
riparian vegetation and increased stream sediment loads. The Service
has described herein the pumping of groundwater to process mined
materials near the Babacomari River as a potential threat to one
Spiranthes site. This groundwater pumping, combined with an expanding
cone of depression in the aquifer at Sierra Vista and Fort Huachuca,
could dewater portions of the Babacomari River, and the Spiranthes
population located near the river could be lost with the elimination of
surface water.
Comment: One commenter stated that the San Pedro River would not be
suitable habitat for the species because it is a dynamic system, and
thus would not provide habitat for successful reestablishment.
Service Response: The San Pedro River is outside of the range of
the Sonora tiger salamander and Spiranthes. The Service does not
consider the San Pedro River as recovery habitat for either of these
species. While the San Pedro River is a dynamic system, Lilaeopsis has
been able to remain established within the system because of refugia
sites that have not yet undergone massive scouring or loss of perennial
waters. An opportunistic species Lilaeopsis, has been able to
recolonize some of the disturbed habitats resulting from the dynamic
nature of the system. The San Pedro River is an important recovery
habitat for Lilaeopsis.
Issue 6: The three species should be listed as threatened rather
than endangered.
Comment: One commenter stated that the three species should be
listed as threatened rather than endangered because threats are
localized and some populations are secure. Another
[[Page 679]]
commenter stated that the proposed rule should be withdrawn because
there is no biological evidence that the species meet the statutory
definition of endangered species. The best available scientific
information does not support the contention that they are endangered
throughout a significant portion of their range.
Service Response: An endangered species is one that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion its range (50 CFR
424.02(e)). A threatened species is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (50 CFR 424.02(m)). The three species listed here
are endangered because of widespread and serious threats that are
thoroughly discussed in the `` Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species'' section of this rule.
Issue 7: The Service failed to follow Federal or other regulations
in regard to the listing of these species.
Comment: The proposed rule is void because this final rule was not
published within 12 months of receipt of the listing petitions.
Service Response: The Service published a proposed rule to list
these species on April 3, 1995. In accordance with 50 CFR 424.17, the
Service is required to publish a final determination, withdrawal, or
extension within 1 year of the date of the proposed rule. In this case,
the final rule was published well over a year after the proposed rule;
however, this was due in part to legislation preventing the Service
from issuing final rules from April 10, 1995, to October 1, 1995; a
near cessation of listing actions from October 1, 1995, to April 26,
1996, due to budget limitations. The Service disagrees that this
invalidates this final rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that the Service did not provide
adequate time for the public to comment on the proposed rule. The
Service violated the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by
not providing the public with sufficient opportunity to comment. The
Service also violated both Acts by denying public access to materials
upon which the proposed rule was based. One commenter stated that the
first public hearing was held in a small town located in a different
county, and far away from the major population area impacted by the
proposed listing--a transparent attempt to prevent public awareness in
the City of Sierra Vista.
Service Response: The Service is required to allow 60 days for
public comment on proposed rules (50 CFR 424.16(c)(2)). Three comment
periods were provided on the proposed rule, including a 60-day period
from April 3 to June 2, 1995; 30 days from June 24 to July 24, 1995;
and 45 days from September 11 to October 27, 1995; a total of 135 days.
The Service is required to hold at least one public hearing if any
person so requests within 45 days of publication of a proposed rule (50
CFR 424.16(c)(3)). The Service received two requests for a public
hearing within the 45 day request period. In response, a public hearing
was held in Patagonia, the closest town with facilities for a hearing
to the residents requesting the hearing and only 36 highway miles from
Sierra Vista. Additional requests for a public hearing in Sierra Vista
were received more than 45 days after publication of the proposed rule.
The Service granted those requests and held a second public hearing in
Sierra Vista.
In response to requests from the public, and in accordance with the
Act and its implementing regulations, the Freedom of Information Act,
and the APA, the Service provided copies of documents to several
members of the public and loaned the administrative record to the City
of Sierra Vista for copying. Some requests for information were not
promptly addressed because they were contained within comment letters
on the proposed rule. In accordance with Service guidance on
implementation of Public Law 104-06 that halted work on final rules,
comment letters were filed and not read; thus granting of some
information requests were delayed. However, the Service did not deny
any information requests, with the exception of information withheld in
accordance with exemptions to disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act.
Comment: One commenter stated that people without proper biological
training influenced the listing process, and thus the process is
flawed.
Service Response: The Service is required to consider all comments
and information received regardless of the extent of any biological
training of the people submitting them. The Service recognizes that
non-biologists may have valid comments or information that may
contribute to a final determination. However, the Service's decision to
list these species were based only on the best scientific and
commercial information available, in accordance with 50 CFR 424.11(b).
Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service failed to
comply with its own regulations governing public notification of
hearings on the proposed rule. Other commenters believed more public
hearings were necessary and that public meetings on the proposed rule
should be held in all areas potentially affected. Hearing times and
locations were inconvenient and not conducive to public participation.
Service Response: In regard to public notification of public
hearings, 50 CFR 424(c)(3) and provisions of the APA require the
Service to publish a notice in the Federal Register not less than 15
days before the hearing is held. Notices announcing a public hearing
were published in the Federal Register 21 days before the July 13,
1995, hearing in Patagonia (June 22, 1995) and 15 days before the
September 27, 1995, public hearing in Sierra Vista (September 12,
1995). The Service's Listing Handbook, which is internal agency
guidance, requires that notifications of public hearings be published
in major and local newspapers within 20 days of the hearing. This
requirement was met; publication dates and newspapers where notices
were published are listed in ``Summary of Comments and
Recommendations'' section. Hearings were held in the evenings during
the week, when most people are not working and can attend. The hearing
locations were in Patagonia and Sierra Vista, which are major
population centers near the center of the distribution of these
species, and near the homes of citizens requesting hearings.
Comment: Commenters stated that the Service, in violation of its
own regulations, failed to give notice to and consult with local
authorities in the Republic of Mexico, on development of the proposed
rule and failed to notify Mexico of publication of the proposed rule.
Service Response: A letter notifying the Director General,
Direccion General de Vida Silvestre, Mexico City, Mexico of this final
determination, along with a copy of the proposed rule (60 FR 16836) was
sent to for review and comment. As of December 9, 1996, no comments
were received from the Mexican government.
Comment: Listing of the three species would constitute a violation
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), because the
Service did not analyze the economic impacts of the action. Because the
Service did not provide adequate notice and opportunity to the public
to comment on the proposed rule, the Service must complete an NEPA
analysis to guard against an arbitrary and capricious decision. An
environmental assessment or impact statement should be completed prior
to listing.
Service Response: As discussed in the ``National Environmental
Policy Act'' section in this rule, the Service has determined that
neither environmental
[[Page 680]]
assessments nor environmental impact statements need to be prepared for
proposed or final listing actions.
Comment: The Act is expired and thus these species should not be
listed.
Service Response: No laws or regulations limit the duration of the
Act's provisions. Section 15(a) of the Act authorizes appropriations
for implementation only through fiscal year 1992, but Congress has
appropriated funds in each fiscal year since 1992 to fund activities
such as this final rule.
Comment: De facto division of species into separate populations at
the international border is unsupported by either biology or the Act,
and runs counter to the 1984 Agreement of Cooperation of Wildlife
between Mexico and the Service.
Service Response: The Service has not attempted to split species
into separate populations with the international boundary as a dividing
line. Each species or subspecies is being listed throughout its range.
The term ``population'' is used in this rule only as a term of
convenience when referring to a particular part of a taxon's range.
Comment: One commenter stated that the notice was irretrievably
flawed on a legal and technical basis by its use of an obsolete address
to which comments and requests for public hearings on the proposed rule
were to be sent. Additionally, this commenter stated that comments and
materials received were not available for public inspection at the old
address; therefore, the Service must, by law, withdraw the proposed
rule.
Service Response: Between the time the proposed rule was prepared
and its publication, the Service moved its office location within
Phoenix, Arizona. The proposed rule listed the old address and
facsimile number and the correct telephone number. The Service received
some comment letters mailed to the old address, indicating that the
Post Office was forwarding the mail. A recorded phone message at the
old phone number also informed callers of the new number in the event
the old office was contacted. The Service is unaware of any comment
letters, requests for hearings, or requests to inspect records that
were returned to the sender, or telephone callers that were not
informed of our new number. In Federal Register notices announcing
subsequent comment periods, from June 24 to July 25, 1995, and
September 12 to October 27, 1995, the correct address and phone numbers
were published. The Service thus believes the public was provided
adequate opportunity to provide comment on the proposed rule and
inspect supporting information.
Comment: One commenter believed the Service violated Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act. This commenter stated that we misrepresented the
known requirements of the salamander, therefore, violating the Act.
This commenter said our discussion of the threats of rural and urban
development, road building, chaining, agriculture, mining, and other
watershed degrading activities to Lilaeopsis was speculation and a
violation of the Act.
Service Response: Habitat and other requirements of the Sonora
tiger salamander presented here and in the proposed rule were based on
the best scientific and commercial information available.
Comment: One commenter questioned whether persons conducting
studies on these species had landowner permission to access sites. This
commenter also questioned whether landowners had been given information
on what work was being done and the reasons behind the research.
Service Response: Surveys and studies on these species were
conducted by many individuals over many years. The Service used the
results from those studies, but the Service has no control over the
conduct of independent researchers, and thus we cannot answer this
question definitively. Nearly all survey work for these species
conducted by Service personnel has focused on Federal lands. The few
surveys conducted by the Service on private lands were with the
permission of the landowner.
Comment: One commenter stated that the listing of these three
species would violate State water law.
Service Response: The listing of these species does not restrict
groundwater pumping or water diversions, or usurp water rights, or
violate State water law.
Issue 8: The Sonora tiger salamander is a hybrid organism and all
three species are recent introductions to the San Rafael Valley, and as
such should not be considered for listing.
Comment: The species are not native but were introduced within the
last 300 years. One commenter stated the salamander was introduced into
the San Rafael Valley earlier in this century and that there is no
verifiable evidence that it ever occurred in any significance in
cienegas. Stock tanks are the natural habitat of the salamander. One
commenter stated that the Sonora tiger salamander was introduced for
use as fish bait.
Service Response: All evidence suggests the species have occurred
within their present ranges for much longer than 300 years. Fossil
Ambystoma found in the Canelo Hills date from at least 31,000 years ago
(Jones et al. 1995). Additional Ambystoma tigrinum fossils dating from
the late Pliocene, more than 2 million years ago, have been found in
the San Pedro River Valley, east of the Huachuca Mountains (Brattstrom
1955). Hybridization is an important evolutionary process from which
new taxa can arise (Harlan 1983, review in Jones et al. 1995). The
Sonora tiger salamander likely resulted from a hybridization between
the subspecies mavortium and nebulosum. The latter no longer occurs in
southeastern Arizona; its range has shifted to the north, an event that
likely occurred during climatic and vegetational shifts during the
Pleistocene (Jones et al. 1995). The absence of this ancestral
subspecies in southeastern Arizona is further evidence that the Sonora
tiger salamander originated long before historical times. Because stock
tanks are a recent phenomenon, Sonora tiger salamanders must have
occupied other habitats at one time. Throughout its range, Ambystoma
tigrinum breeds in various types of wetlands, including ponds, lakes,
slow streams, and backwaters (Bishop 1943). Habitats such as these were
present in the San Rafael Valley during presettlement times in the form
of cienegas and streams. Although no Sonora tiger salamanders have been
collected from cienegas or streams (with the possible exception of the
specimen from Los Fresnos, Sonora), these wetlands are the most likely
presettlement breeding habitats of the salamander.
There is no evidence that supports the commenter's claim that
Lilaeopsis and Spiranthes are recent introductions by humans into the
San Rafael Valley. Lilaeopsis has been noted from sites within the
Santa Cruz, San Pedro, Rio Yaqui, and Rio Sonora watersheds. Lilaeopsis
was first described based on a specimen collected near Tucson in 1881
(Hill 1926). There is no indication that this inconspicuous plant was
introduced by humans. Spiranthes was not discovered until 1968;
however, evidence suggests this species has a unique evolutionary
history associated with the San Rafael Valley and may have arose
through hybridization between Spiranthes vernalis (a species of the
southern Great Plains) and either Spiranthes porrifolia (a California-
Northern Cordilleran species) or Spiranthes romanzoffiana (a species of
high elevations in northern Arizona, the southern Rockies, and
Pleistocene relict habitats in the Pinalenos (Sheviak 1990, Jones et
al. 1995; Charles Sheviak, in litt. 1995)).
[[Page 681]]
Issue 9: Experts on Lilaeopsis and the Sonora tiger salamander
believe these species do not warrant listing.
Comment: Several commenters stated that experts on the Sonora tiger
salamander (Dr. James Collins) and Lilaeopsis (Dr. Peter Warren) do not
believe these species should be listed. Mexico also disagrees with the
proposed endangered status. This expert testimony should convince the
Service not to list these species, or the Service should publish a
notice in the Federal Register extending the listing process to resolve
differences among experts in regard to the status of these species.
Service Response: The Service discussed the listing of the
salamander with Dr. Collins in October, 1996, and asked him to clarify
his position. Dr. Collins has found that the status of the salamander
has been stable from the mid 1980's to the present, based on numbers of
occupied breeding sites. However, he believed that continued spread of
nonnative predators, presence of a reoccurring, lethal disease, and
other factors warrant concern and that some conservation measures are
needed.
The Service has discussed the statements attributed to Dr. Warren
with him. Dr. Warren has worked towards developing and implementing
conservation measures in order to provide for the recovery of
Lilaeopsis or possibly preclude its listing. As a staff member of The
Nature Conservancy (TNC), neither Dr. Warren nor TNC has taken an
official stand in support or opposition to the listing of Lilaeopsis
(Peter Warren, Arizona Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. 1996).
The Mexican government has not taken or expressed an official
position regarding listings of these three species. As stated
previously, the Service has not received comments from Mexico. Mexico
considers the tiger salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum, a species of
special protection.
Issue 10: Current actions of the City of Sierra Vista and Fort
Huachuca do not affect the species, and planned actions are not
expected to affect the salamander or Spiranthes. Habitat of Lilaeopsis
would not be affected for several decades.
Comment: The Director of Public Works for the City of Sierra Vista
requested that the following information be included in the Federal
Register to correct the proposed rule--``(1) Groundwater use by Sierra
Vista and Fort Huachuca currently is not endangering any habitat
critical to the survival of the umbel, lily, salamander, or any other
listed or proposed species; is not expected to ever affect any habitat
critical to the survival of the lily or the salamander; and is not
expected to affect any habitat critical to the survival of the umbel
for several decades; (2) Sierra Vista has determined that recharging
the City's sewage effluent can protect the San Pedro River from adverse
effects caused by groundwater pumping to support expected growth of the
City and Fort Huachuca for at least 100 years, and probably much
longer; (3) Sierra Vista is actively pursuing projects to recharge its
sewage effluent and increase floodwater recharge. Fort Huachuca also is
actively working to recharge effluent and increase floodwater recharge.
Both the City and Fort Huachuca are making real efforts to protect the
San Pedro River riparian habitat and the species that live there; and
(4) the growth and development of Sierra Vista, including Fort
Huachuca, does not pose any immediate threat to any critical habitat or
endangered species currently under consideration, and it is anticipated
that action will be taken by both entities to eliminate any such threat
before it occurs.''
Service Response: Information in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species Section'' has been revised based on new information in
regard to the effects of groundwater pumping in and near Sierra Vista,
and efforts by Sierra Vista and Fort Huachuca to conserve water,
recharge effluent, and implement other measures to reduce the potential
effects of their activities on the San Pedro River and habitat of
Lilaeopsis.
The Service has determined that designation of critical habitat for
these three species is not prudent. For discussion relating to critical
habitat (Item 1), see the ``Critical Habitat'' section of this rule.
The Service concurs with item 3, but cannot concur with portions of
items 2 and 4. In regard to item 2, ASL (1995) found that if effluent
is recharged adjacent to the San Pedro River or at the Sierra Vista
wastewater treatment plan, flows would be maintained or increased on
the San Pedro River from Lewis Springs to Charleston Bridge (downslope
and downstream of the recharge areas, respectively) for at least 100
years. However, in all scenarios modeled by ASL, river flow declined
between Palominas and Lewis Spring. Furthermore, the model assumed that
water demands outside of Sierra Vista are held at 1995 levels, which is
highly unlikely. With increasing water demands throughout the
subwatershed, river flows between Palominas and Lewis Spring will
decline more than indicated by ASL's results, and flows between Lewis
Spring and Charleston Bridge also may decline under any recharge
scenario. Effective mitigation of the effects of groundwater pumping on
San Pedro River flows depends on development and implementation of the
effluent recharge program as outlined in ASL (1995) for at least 100
years. ASL (1995) notes that questions remain before the feasibility of
long-term recharge can be assessed. Also, we are unaware of any long-
term funding commitments to operate such a program. Finally, the cone
of depression under Sierra Vista/Fort Huachuca continues to grow in all
scenarios. The Service is concerned that as it grows, the cone will in
time (perhaps more than 100 years) capture the effluent recharge and
then the river itself, unless water recharge is balanced with use. With
regard to item 4, and as discussed in the ``Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species'' section growth and development at Sierra Vista
and Fort Huachuca, particularly groundwater pumping, but other
activities as well, potentially threaten Lilaeopsis. In addition,
activities at Fort Huachuca could potentially affect Sonora tiger
salamander and Lilaeopsis populations on the Fort. As of this writing,
the Service is in informal conferencing with Fort Huachuca with regard
to implementation of their Master Plan and possible effects to
Lilaeopsis and the salamander. The Service's opinion on the Master Plan
will be based on the effects of current and planned activities at Fort
Huachuca on Lilaeopsis, the salamander, and other listed species.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
After a thorough review and consideration of all information
available, the Service has determined that Spiranthes delitescens,
Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva, and the Sonora tiger salamander
should be classified as endangered species. Procedures found at section
4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations implementing the listing provisions
of the Act (50 CFR Part 424) were followed. A species may be determined
to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the
five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their
application to Spiranthes delitescens Sheviak (Canelo Hills ladies'-
tresses), Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva (A.W. Hill) Affolter
(Huachuca water umbel), and the Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma
tigrinum stebbinsi) are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
Human activities have affected southwestern riparian systems over a
[[Page 682]]
period of several thousand years. From prehistoric times, settlements
in southern Arizona centered on oasis-like cienegas, streams, and
rivers. Prior to the early 1800's, indigenous peoples and missionaries
used southern Arizona cienegas and riparian areas mostly for
subsistence purposes, including wood-cutting, agriculture (including
livestock grazing), and food and fiber harvesting. In the early 1800's,
fur trappers nearly eliminated beaver from southern Arizona streams and
rivers (Davis 1986), significantly changing stream morphology. In
addition, human-caused fire and trails may have significantly altered
riparian systems (Bahre 1991, Dobyns 1981). Hadley and Sheridan (1995)
suggest that use of fire by native Americans may have helped maintain
grassland communities in the San Rafael Valley, a practice which
undoubtedly affected riparian and cienega habitats, as well.
European settlement of southern Arizona and northern Sonora
probably did not begin to significantly affect natural communities
until the late 1600's or early 1700's when cattle were introduced
(Hadley and Sheridan 1995). However, resistance by Apaches and other
tribes discouraged settlement until the early to mid-1800's, after
which human populations and associated livestock production and
agriculture increased significantly. By the late 1800's, many southern
Arizona watersheds were in poor condition due to uncontrolled livestock
grazing, mining, hay harvesting, timber harvesting, and other
management practices, such as fire suppression (Martin 1975, Bahre
1991, Humphrey 1958, Hadley and Sheridan 1995).
Watershed degradation caused by these management practices led to
widespread erosion and channel entrenchment when above-average
precipitation and flooding occurred in the late 1800's (Bahre 1991,
Bryan 1925, Dobyns 1981, Hastings and Turner 1980, Hendrickson and
Minckley 1984, Martin 1975, Sheridan 1986, Webb and Betancourt 1992).
These events contributed to long-term or permanent degradation and loss
of cienega and riparian habitat throughout southern Arizona and
northern Mexico. Physical evidence of losses and changes in cienegas
and other riparian areas can be found in the black organic soils of cut
banks in the San Rafael Valley (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984), San
Pedro River (Hereford 1992), Black Draw (Sue Rutman, Organ Pipe
National Monument, pers. comm. 1992), and elsewhere. Between the 1860's
and mid-1890's, the lush grasslands and cienegas of San Rafael Valley
disappeared or became highly localized (Hadley and Sheridan 1995).
Although these events took place nearly a century ago, the ecosystem
has not yet fully recovered and, in some areas, may never recover.
Wetland degradation and loss continues today. Human activities such
as groundwater overdrafts, surface water diversions, impoundments,
channelization, improper livestock grazing, agriculture, mining, road
building, nonnative species introductions, urbanization, wood cutting,
and recreation all contribute to riparian and cienega habitat loss and
degradation in southern Arizona. The local and regional effects of
these activities are expected to increase with the increasing human
population. Each threat is discussed in more detail below.
The largest area currently available for recovery of Lilaeopsis is
the San Pedro River along the perennial reach from Hereford to about 4
miles north of Charleston. Whether or not the species can recover there
depends largely on future perennial surface flows in the river and a
natural, unregulated hydrograph. Perennial flow in the upper San Pedro
River is derived from precipitation runoff and interflow through the
unsaturated soil horizon, and baseflow in the form of groundwater flow
from deep regional aquifers and a shallower floodplain aquifer (Arizona
Department of Water Resources 1991, Arizona Department of Water
Resources 1994, ASL 1994, Jackson et al. 1987, Vionnet and Maddock
1992).
Groundwater pumping has increased dramatically since the early
1960's (ASL 1994). Annual water use exceeds supplies by approximately
11,200 acre-feet and has resulted in cones of depression in the aquifer
at areas with significant groundwater pumping. These areas include
Sierra Vista and Fort Huachuca, Huachuca City, and the Hereford-
Palominas areas (Water and Environmental Systems Technology, Inc.
1994). Although the relationships between groundwater pumping and river
flow are complicated, continued unmitigated groundwater withdrawal
threatens to reduce or eliminate baseflows in the San Pedro River
(Arizona Department of Water Resources 1991, ASL 1995, Water and
Environmental Systems Technology, Inc. 1994). A reduction in baseflow
as a result of groundwater pumping in the Sierra Vista-Fort Huachuca
area could occur within 25 years, but such effects could be reduced by
water conservation, watershed management, effluent recharge or other
measures to reduce water use or increase recharge (ASL 1995, Water and
Environmental Systems Technology, Inc. 1994).
Such measures are being developed and implemented, including
development of a Surface Water Plan and Effluent Recharge Plan, and
adoption of water conservation measures by the City of Sierra Vista;
and implementation of water conservation measures, enhancement of
mountain front recharge, effluent recharge, and other actions by Fort
Huachuca (ASL 1995, Fort Huachuca 1995). However, these measures may
not be adequate to balance use with recharge, halt the eventual
interception of the river by cones of depression, and ultimately,
maintain baseflow throughout the upper San Pedro River (Water and
Environmental Systems Technology, Inc. 1994, ASL 1995). If baseflow in
the river decreases, a desertification of the riparian flora will occur
(Stromberg et al. 1996). If the groundwater drops below the elevation
of the channel bed, the wetland plant (herb) association where
Lilaeopsis is found will be the first plant association to be lost
(Arizona Department of Water Resources 1994, Stromberg et al. 1996).
Fort Huachuca also relies on a well and springs in Garden Canyon
(Arizona Department of Water Resources 1991). These diversions and
pumping could dewater the stream and damage or destroy the Lilaeopsis
population in the canyon, particularly during below-average rainfall
periods. The City of Sierra Vista is exploring means for implementing
conservation and habitat restoration actions for Lilaeopsis and other
rare plants.
Perennial flows in certain reaches of the Santa Cruz River remained
perennial until groundwater pumping caused the water table to drop
below the streambed. In 1908, the water table near Tucson was above the
streambed, but from 1940-1969, the water table was 6.0-21.0 m (20-70
feet) below the streambed (De la Torre 1970). Recovery of perennial
flow in the Santa Cruz River and of Lilaeopsis near Tucson is unlikely,
given the importance of groundwater for the metropolitan area.
Groundwater pumping in Mexico threatens populations of Lilaeopsis
on both sides of the border. South of the San Bernardino National
Wildlife Refuge, groundwater is being pumped to irrigate farmlands in
Mexico, and this pumping threatens to dry up the springs and streams
that support several listed endangered fish and a population of
Lilaeopsis. The large copper mine at Cananea, Sonora, pumps groundwater
for processing and support services. Although little is known about how
groundwater pumping near Cananea
[[Page 683]]
may affect the spring at Ojo de Agua de Cananea, it is likely that
overdrafts would decrease springflow or dewater the spring, extirpating
the Lilaeopsis population. The spring at Ojo de Agua de Cananea is also
the main source of municipal water for the town of Cananea. This water
diversion, particularly if increased, may adversely affect Lilaeopsis.
In the past, large contaminant spills from the mine have occurred,
resulting in fish kills for many miles of the San Pedro River in Mexico
and the United States. The effects of such spills on Lilaeopsis are
unknown, but could be detrimental.
Reaches of many southern Arizona rivers and streams have been
channelized for flood control purposes, which disrupts natural channel
dynamics and promotes the loss of riparian plant communities.
Channelization modifies the natural hydrograph above and below the
channelized reach, which may adversely affect Lilaeopsis and
Spiranthes. Channelization will continue to contribute to riparian
habitat decline. Additional channelization will accelerate the loss
and/or degradation of Spiranthes and Lilaeopsis habitat. Dredging
extirpated Lilaeopsis at House Pond, near the extant population in
Black Draw (Warren et al. 1991). The Lilaeopsis population at Zinn Pond
in St. David near the San Pedro River was probably lost when the pond
was dredged and deepened. This population was last documented in 1953
(Warren et al. 1991).
Livestock grazing potentially affects Lilaeopsis at the ecosystem,
community, population, and individual levels. Cattle generally do not
eat Lilaeopsis because the leaves are too close to the ground, but they
can trample plants. Lilaeopsis is capable of rapidly expanding in
disturbed sites and could recover quickly from light trampling by
extending undisturbed rhizomes (Warren et al. 1991). Light trampling
also may keep other plant density low, providing favorable Lilaeopsis
microsites. Well-managed livestock grazing and Lilaeopsis are
compatible. The fact that Lilaeopsis and its habitat occur in the upper
Santa Cruz and San Pedro river systems in the San Rafael Valley attests
to the good land stewardship of past and current landowners.
Poor livestock grazing management can destabilize stream channels
and disturb cienega soils, creating conditions unfavorable to
Lilaeopsis, which requires stable stream channels and cienegas. Such
management can also change riparian structure and diversity, causing a
decline in watershed condition. Poor livestock grazing management is
widely believed to be one of the most significant factors contributing
to regional channel entrenchment in the late 1800's.
Livestock management in Mexico has severely degraded riparian areas
along Black Draw and its watershed. The degraded habitat most likely
contributed to the severity of a destructive scouring flood on San
Bernardino Creek in 1988, which extirpated two patches of Lilaeopsis.
Overgrazing is occurring immediately adjacent to the San Bernardino
National Wildlife Refuge and has destabilized the channel of Black
Draw. A headcut moving upstream threatens to undermine the riparian
area recovery that has occurred since the refuge was acquired. The
refuge is implementing management to avoid the destructive effects of
downstream grazing.
Sand and gravel mining along the San Pedro, Babacomari, and Santa
Cruz rivers in the United States has occurred and probably will
continue, although no mining occurs within the San Pedro Riparian
National Conservation Area. Sand and gravel operations remove riparian
vegetation and destabilize the system, which could cause Spiranthes or
Lilaeopsis population and habitat losses upstream or downstream from
the mining. These mines also pump groundwater for processing purposes,
and could locally affect groundwater reserves and perennial stream
baseflow. Since 1983, groundwater has been used to wash sand and gravel
mined near the Babacomari River, 0.8 km (0.5 mi) west of Highway 90
(Arizona Department of Water Resources 1991). This activity could
affect at least one Spiranthes population.
Rural and urban development, road building and maintenance,
agriculture, mining, and other land disturbances that degrade
watersheds can adversely affect Lilaeopsis. These activities are common
in the middle Santa Cruz basin but much less prevalent in the San Pedro
basin. For these reasons, conservation and recovery of the middle Santa
Cruz River is unlikely but still possible in the upper San Pedro
watershed, given region-wide planning decisions favorable to good
watershed management. Increased development in the upper San Pedro
Valley, including the expansion of existing cities and increased rural
building, will likely increase erosion and have other detrimental
watershed effects.
Watershed-level disturbances are few in the upper Santa Cruz and
Black Draw drainages. Irrigated farm fields were present in the Black
Draw watershed, but these were abandoned when the Service acquired the
area as a refuge. The fields are returning to natural vegetation. The
San Rafael Valley, which contains portions of the headwaters of the
Santa Cruz and San Pedro rivers, is well-managed, and currently
undeveloped, with few watershed-disturbing activities. However, there
is potential for commercial development in the San Rafael Valley and
resulting watershed effects.
Riparian areas and cienegas offer oasis-like living and
recreational opportunities for residents of southern Arizona and
northern Sonora. Riparian areas and cienegas such as Sonoita Creek, the
San Pedro River, Canelo Hills cienega, and the perennial creeks of the
Huachuca Mountains receive substantial recreational visitation, and
this is expected to increase with an increasing southern Arizona
population. While well-managed recreational activity is unlikely to
extirpate Spiranthes or Lilaeopsis populations, severe impacts in
unmanaged areas can compact soils, destabilize stream banks, and
decrease riparian plant density, including densities of Spiranthes and
Lilaeopsis.
Stream headcutting threatens the Lilaeopsis and presumed Sonora
tiger salamander populations at Los Fresnos cienega in Sonora. Erosion
is occurring in Arroyo Los Fresnos downstream from the cienega and the
headcut is moving upstream. The causes of this erosion are uncertain,
but are presumably livestock grazing and roads in this sparsely
populated region. If the causes of this erosion are left unchecked and
headcutting continues, it is likely that the cienega habitat will be
lost within the foreseeable future. The loss of Los Fresnos cienega may
extirpate the Lilaeopsis and tiger salamander populations. If the
salamanders at the Los Fresnos cienega are Sonora tiger salamanders,
this would represent the only known natural cienega habitat occupied by
an aquatic population of this species.
All confirmed Sonora tiger salamander populations have been found
in stock tanks or impounded cienegas constructed to collect runoff for
livestock. Many tanks probably date from the 1920's and 1930's when
government subsidies were available to offset construction costs (Brown
1985); however, some tanks were constructed as early as the 1820's and
as late as the 1960's (Hadley and Sheridan 1995). These stock tanks, to
some degree, have created and replaced permanent or semipermanent
Sonora tiger salamander water sources.
[[Page 684]]
Although the tanks provide suitable aquatic habitats, current
management and the dynamic nature of these artificial impoundments
compromise their ability to support salamander populations in the long
term. The tanks collect silt from upstream drainages and must be
cleaned out periodically, typically with heavy equipment. This
maintenance is done when stock tanks are dry or nearly dry, at an
average interval of about 15 years (Laura Dupee, Coronado National
Forest, pers. comm. 1993). As the tanks dry out, a proportion of
aquatic salamanders typically metamorphose and migrate from the pond.
However, if water is present during maintenance, eggs, branchiate, and
larval salamanders may be present and would be lost as a result of the
excavation of remaining aquatic habitat. Aquatic salamanders also may
occur in the mud of dry or nearly dry tanks and would be affected. Any
terrestrial metamorphs at the tank or in areas disturbed would be lost
during maintenance activities.
Flooding and drought pose additional threats to stock tank
populations of Sonora tiger salamanders. The tanks are simple earthen
impoundments without water control structures. Flooding could erode and
breach downstream berms or deposit silt, resulting in a loss of aquatic
habitat. Long-term drought could dry up stock tanks, as witnessed in
1994 and 1996. Fires in watersheds above the tanks may lead to
increased erosion and sedimentation following storms and exacerbate the
effects of flooding.
Sonora tiger salamanders have persisted in stock tanks despite
periodic maintenance, flooding, and drought. If the tanks refill soon
after drought or other events that result in loss of aquatic habitat,
they could presumably be recolonized through terrestrial metamorph
reproduction. However, if a tank was dry for several years and isolated
from other salamander localities, insufficient terrestrial salamanders
may remain and immigration from other populations may be inadequate to
recolonize the stock tank. Potential grazing practice changes also
threaten aquatic Sonora tiger salamander populations. Stock tanks could
be abandoned or replaced by other watering facilities, such as troughs
supplied by windmills or pipelines. Troughs do not provide habitat for
Sonora tiger salamanders.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
No commercial, recreational, or educational uses of Lilaeopsis are
known. A limited amount of scientific collecting is likely to occur but
is expected to pose no threat to the species.
Although no specific cases of illegal commercial Spiranthes
delitescens collecting have been documented, commercial dealers,
hobbyists, and other collectors are widely known to significantly
threaten natural orchid populations. The commercial value of an orchid
already threatened by illegal commercial collection may increase after
it is listed as threatened or endangered. To limit the possible adverse
effects of illegal collecting, no specific Spiranthes population
locations are discussed in this rule, nor will critical habitat be
designated. No recreational or educational uses for Spiranthes
currently are known. The small amount of legitimate scientific
collecting that has occurred was regulated by the Arizona Native Plant
Law (A.R.S. Chapter 7, Article 1).
Collecting of Ambystoma in the San Rafael Valley of Arizona is
prohibited by Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 41. Collins and
Jones (1987) reported an illegal Ambystoma collection from the San
Rafael Valley and suspected that bait collectors and anglers often move
salamanders among stock tanks. The extent of this activity and its
threat to populations is unknown. However, all Sonora tiger salamanders
populations are relatively small (Collins and Jones 1987, Collins
1996). Collecting may significantly reduce recruitment, the size of
branchiate or larval populations, and genetic diversity within a tank.
This may increase the likelihood of extirpations.
C. Disease or Predation
Neither the Lilaeopsis nor Spiranthes are known to be threatened by
disease or predation.
Sonora tiger salamanders populations are eliminated by nonnative
fish predation, particularly sunfish and catfish (Collins and Jones
1987, Collins 1996). In laboratory studies, bullhead, mosquito fish,
and sunfish ate Sonora tiger salamander eggs, hatchlings, and small
larvae (Collins 1996). Introduced nonnative fish are well-established
in the San Rafael Valley and have been implicated in apparent Sonora
tiger salamander extirpations from five stock tanks, including the type
locality (Collins et al. 1988, Collins 1996). Nonnative fish are known
to occur at only one of 23 sites where salamanders have been found
during one or more of the last three visits from 1993 through 1996.
However, nonnative fish occur at 7 of 10 sites where the salamander is
thought to be extirpated or where it has not been found during the last
three visits. The effect of native fishes on salamander populations is
unknown (Collins et al. 1988), some native species have a potential to
prey on Sonora tiger salamanders. No native fish are known to occur
with aquatic populations of salamanders.
Bullfrogs occur with Sonora tiger salamanders at 16 of 23 sites at
which salamanders have been found during one or more of the last three
visits from 1993 through 1996. Adult bullfrogs are known to prey on
salamanders; however, bullfrog tadpoles do not eat viable salamander
eggs or hatchlings (Collins 1996; James Collins, pers. comm. 1996).
Bullfrogs were found to be more widely distributed in the San Rafael
Valley in the 1990's as compared to 1985 (Collins 1996). The effect of
predation by bullfrogs on salamander populations is unknown; however,
increased mortality attributable to bullfrog predation may reduce
population viability.
Virtually no recruitment was noted in recent surveys, as evidenced
by a lack of surviving larvae in tanks where eggs were known to have
been deposited (Collins 1996). Lack of recruitment appeared to be a
result of predation by overwintering branchiate and larval salamanders.
This predation may occur due to a lack of structural complexity, such
as emergent and shoreline vegetation, logs, and rocks, that would
provide cover and protection from predation (Collins 1996). Lack of
shoreline and emergent vegetation is at least partially due to
trampling and foraging by cattle.
A disease characterized by sloughing of skin and hemorrhaging
killed all branchiate salamanders at Huachuca Tank, Parker Canyon Tank
#1, and Inez Tank in 1985 (Collins et al. 1988) and has been detected
at seven tanks in 1995-1996 (James Collins, pers. comm. 1996). The
disease may be caused by a combination of a virus and Aeromonas (a
bacteria) infections (James Collins, pers. comm. 1996). Parker Canyon
Tank #1 and Inez Tank were recolonized by 1987, and salamanders were
found once again at Huachuca Tank in 1994. These tanks were presumably
recolonized by reproducing terrestrial metamorphs that survived the
disease or that moved to these tanks from adjacent populations. At the
seven tanks where the disease was found in 1995-1996, the effects on
the populations will not be known until the disease runs its course. If
the disease recurs with enough frequency, populations could be lost due
to lack of recruitment of juveniles into the adult cohort. The disease
also has the potential to reduce genetic variability,
[[Page 685]]
which is already very low in this taxon (Jones et al. 1995). Low
genetic variability increases the chances of population extirpation
(Shafer 1990). Bullfrogs, wading birds, waterfowl, and other animals
that move among tanks may facilitate spread of the disease.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Federal and state laws and regulations can protect these three
species and their habitat to some extent. However, Federal and state
agency discretion allowed under the authority of these laws still
permits adverse effects to listed and rare species. Adding Lilaeopsis,
Spiranthes, and the Sonora tiger salamander to the endangered species
list will help to reduce adverse affects to these species.
Lilaeopsis and Spiranthes are not classified as rare, threatened,
or endangered species by the Mexican government; nor do their habitats
receive special protection in Mexico. However, Ambystoma tigrinum,
including the Sonora tiger salamander, is a species of special
protection. This designation affords certain protections to the species
and its habitat (Secretario de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologia 1994).
On July 1, 1975, all species in the Orchid family (including
Spiranthes delitescens) were included in Appendix II of the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES). CITES is an international treaty established to prevent
international trade that may be detrimental to the survival of plants
and animals. A CITES export permit must be issued by the exporting
country before an Appendix II species may be shipped. CITES permits may
not be issued if the export will be detrimental to the survival of the
species or if the specimens were not legally acquired. However, CITES
does not regulate take or domestic trade. CITES provides no protection
to Lilaeopsis or the Sonora tiger salamander.
The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C 3371 et seq.), as amended in 1982, provides
limited protection for these three species. Under the Lacey Act it is
prohibited to import, export, sell, receive, acquire, purchase, or
engage in the interstate or foreign commerce of any species taken,
possessed, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of
the United States, any Tribal law, or any law or regulation of any
state. Interstate transport of protected species occurs despite the
Lacey Act because enforcement is difficult.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16
U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) direct the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.
Forest Service respectively, to prepare programmatic-level management
plans that will guide long-term resource management decisions. The
goals of the Coronado National Forest Plan (Plan) include a commitment
to maintain viable populations of all native wildlife, fish, and plant
species within the Forest's jurisdiction through improved habitat
management (Coronado National Forest 1986a). The Plan provides a list
of rare plants and animals found on the Forest, but gives only a very
general description of programmatic-level management guidelines and
expected effort (Coronado National Forest 1986a). The Coronado National
Forest is committed to multiple use and, where the demands of various
interest groups conflict, the Forest must make decisions that represent
compromises among these interests (Coronado National Forest 1986b)
which could result in adverse effects to listed species.
The Plan's endangered species program includes participation in
reaching recovery plan objectives for listed species, habitat
coordination and surveys for listed species, and habitat improvement
(Coronado National Forest 1986b). After acknowledging budget
constraints, the Plan states that studies of endangered plants will
occur at approximately the 1980 funding level.
Three populations of Lilaeopsis and four individual Spiranthes are
known to occur on the Coronado National Forest. The Forest also manages
the habitat of 17 of the 23 aquatic sites at which Sonora tiger
salamanders have been observed during one or more of the last three
visits during 1993 through 1996. Twenty-six of the 36 aquatic sites at
which salamanders have been found are on Coronado National Forest land,
underscoring the importance of Forest Service management. However,
these numbers are somewhat misleading in that salamander surveys have
focused on National Forest lands. Other aquatic sites likely occur on
private lands, which to date have not been intensively surveyed.
Nevertheless, the Coronado National Forest is the most important land
manager of aquatic sites known to be occupied by Sonora tiger
salamanders. The Forest considers the salamander a sensitive species
and a management indicator species, which receive special consideration
in land management decisions (Coronado National Forest 1986a). The
ability of the Forest Service to manage the three species addressed
here is limited because many of the populations do not occur on Forest
Service lands and/or require ecosystem-level management that in some
cases is beyond Forest Service control.
In accordance with Army Regulation 200-3, Fort Huachuca is
preparing an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan that will
require preparation of Endangered Species Management Plans (ESMPs) for
all listed and proposed species and critical habitat (Sheridan Stone,
Fort Huachuca, pers. comm. 1996). The ESMPs are expected to provide
management recommendations for conservation of Sonora tiger salamander
and Lilaeopsis populations and habitat at Fort Huachuca. An ESMP is
being prepared for the Fort Huachuca Sonora tiger salamander
population. Although salamanders are known from only a single site at
Fort Huachuca, the ESMP is expected to have recommendations that could
be extended to other populations.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321-4370a) requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental
impacts of their actions. NEPA requires Federal agencies to describe a
proposed action, consider alternatives, identify and disclose potential
environmental impacts of each alternative, and involve the public in
the decision-making process. It does not require Federal agencies to
select the alternative having the least significant environmental
impacts. A Federal action agency may decide to choose an action that
will adversely affect listed or candidate species provided these
effects were known and identified in a NEPA document.
All three species addressed in this rule inhabit wetlands that are
afforded varying protection under section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376), as amended; and
Federal Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990
(Protection of Wetlands). Cumulatively, these Federal regulations are
not sufficient to halt population extirpation and habitat losses for
the three species addressed in this rule.
The Arizona Native Plant Law (A.R.S. Chapter 7, Article 1) protects
Spiranthes delitescens and Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva as
highly safeguarded species. A permit from the Arizona Department of
Agriculture (ADA) must be obtained to legally collect these species on
public or private lands in Arizona. Permits may be issued for
scientific and educational purposes only. It is unlawful to destroy,
dig up, mutilate, collect, cut, harvest, or take any living, ``highly
safeguarded,'' native plant from private, State, or Federal
[[Page 686]]
land without a permit. However, private landowners and Federal and
State agencies may clear land and destroy habitat after giving the ADA
sufficient notice to allow plant salvage. Despite the protections of
the Arizona Native Plant Law, legal and illegal damage and destruction
of plants and habitat occur.
Collecting Ambystoma in the San Rafael Valley is prohibited under
Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 41, except under special permit.
Nevertheless, some illegal collecting occurs (Collins and Jones 1987).
The species is considered a species of special concern by the State of
Arizona (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1996); however, this
designation affords the species and its habitat no legal protection.
Transport and stocking of live bullfrogs and fishing with live bait
fish or Ambystoma within the range of this salamander in Arizona is
prohibited by Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 41 and R12-4-316,
respectively. However, bullfrogs and nonnative fish are present at
numerous extant and historical Sonora tiger salamander localities
(Collins and Jones 1987, Collins 1996), suggesting continued illegal
introductions. Furthermore, abandonment, modification, or breaching of
stock tanks is allowed on private and public lands. Such actions could
eliminate Sonora tiger salamander populations.
State of Arizona Executive Order Number 89-16 (Streams and Riparian
Resources), signed on June 10, 1989, directs state agencies to evaluate
their actions and implement changes, as appropriate, to allow for
riparian resources restoration. Implementation of this regulation may
ameliorate adverse effects of some state actions on the species
addressed in this rule.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Arizona anglers and commercial bait dealers often introduce larval
tiger salamanders into ponds and tanks for future bait collecting
(Collins et al. 1988, Lowe 1954). Collins and Jones (1987) reported
that tiger salamanders were illegally collected from the San Rafael
Valley and transported to at least two tanks in the northern Patagonia
Mountains. Bait dealers or others moving Sonora tiger salamanders to
new localities could establish new populations. Collins and Jones
(1987) suggest that transport and introduction of salamanders within
the San Rafael Valley may have greatly influenced their present
distribution. Moving could also transmit disease and cause
unintentional introductions of fish or bullfrogs, which might reduce or
extirpate populations.
Transport and introduction of salamanders poses an additional
threat. Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium is common in stock tanks and ponds
to the east of the San Rafael Valley. Bait dealers and anglers probably
introduced many of these populations (Collins 1981, Collins and Jones
1987). If Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium is introduced into Sonora tiger
salamander localities, populations could be lost due to genetic
swamping by interbreeding of the two subspecies.
Two populations of Lilaeopsis have been lost from unknown causes.
Despite the presence of apparently suitable conditions, the species has
not been observed at Monkey Spring near Sonoita Creek since 1965.
Lilaeopsis was collected in 1958 in deep water along the San Pedro
River by Highway 80 near St. David, but no longer exists there, nor is
there now suitable habitat (Warren et al. 1990).
Aggressive nonnative plants disrupt native riparian plant
communities. Nonnative Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) is invading
one Spiranthes site (Dave Gori, Arizona Nature Conservancy, in litt.
1993). This tall grass forms a dense monoculture, displacing less
competitive native plants. If Johnson grass continues to spread, the
Spiranthes population may be lost (Dave Gori, in litt. 1993). Bermuda
grass (Cynodon dactylon) also displaces native riparian plants,
including cottonwoods and willows that stabilize stream channels.
Bermuda grass forms a thick sod in which many native plants are unable
to establish. In certain microsites, Bermuda grass may directly compete
with Lilaeopsis or Spiranthes. There are no known effective methods for
eliminating Bermuda grass or Johnson grass from natural plant
communities on a long term basis. Watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-
aquaticum) is another nonnative plant now abundant along perennial
streams in Arizona. It is successful in disturbed areas and can form
dense monocultures that can out-compete Lilaeopsis populations.
Limited numbers of populations render each of the three taxa
addressed in this rule vulnerable to extinction as a result of
naturally occurring chance events that are often exacerbated by habitat
disturbance. For instance, the restriction of these three species to a
relatively small area in southeastern Arizona and adjacent Sonora
increases the chance that a single environmental catastrophe, such as a
severe tropical storm or drought could eliminate populations or cause
extinction. This is of particular concern for Sonora tiger salamander
populations inhabiting stock tanks that could wash out during a storm
or dry out during drought. Furthermore, Sonora tiger salamander genetic
heterozygosity is among the lowest reported for any salamander (Jones
et al. 1988, Jones et al. 1995). Low heterozygosity indicates low
genetic variation, which increases demographic variability and the
chance of local extirpations (Shafer 1990).
The ability of Sonora tiger salamanders to move between populations
is unknown, but arid grassland, savanna, or pine-oak woodland separate
all populations and movement through these relatively dry landscapes is
probably limited. Movement would be most likely during storms or where
wet drainages are available as movement corridors. The distance between
aquatic populations of Sonora tiger salamander is frequently more than
1.6 km (1.0 mi), and much greater distances separate several sites. For
instance, Game and Fish Tank is 10.1 km (6.3 mi) from the nearest
adjacent aquatic population. Thus, even if these salamanders are
capable of moving relatively long distances, some populations may be
effectively geographically isolated. Small, isolated populations have
an increased probability of extirpation (Wilcox and Murphy 1985).
Disease, predation by nonnative predators, and drying of tanks during
drought further increase the chance of extirpation. Once populations
are extirpated, natural recolonization of these isolated habitats may
not occur (Frankel and Soule 1981).
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by these taxa in determining to make this rule
final. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list
Spiranthes delitescens, Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva, and the
Sonora tiger salamander as endangered. These species are endangered
because of widespread and serious threats that may lead to extinction
in the foreseeable future. As a result, listing as threatened species
would not fully address the extent and nature of threats to these
species. The Service believes designation of critical habitat is not
prudent for all three species. The rationale for these decisions are
discussed in the following section.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(I) the
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the
time it is listed in
[[Page 687]]
accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or
biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species
and (II) that may require special management considerations or
protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
``Conservation,'' means the use of all methods and procedures needed to
bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act is no
longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 242.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time
a species is determined to be endangered or threatened. The Service
finds that designation of critical habitat is not prudent for
Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva, Spiranthes delitescens, and
Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi. Service regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1))
state that designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or
both of the following situations exist--(1) the species is threatened
by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical
habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat, or (2)
such designation would not be beneficial to the species.
Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva and Sonora tiger salamander
would not benefit from the designation of critical habitat. The Service
determines that any potential benefits beyond those afforded by
listing, when weighed against the negative impacts of disclosing their
site-specific location, does not yield an overall benefit and is
therefore not prudent. The overall habitat protection and conservation
of these two species would be best implemented by the recovery process
and section 7 provisions of the Act (see ``Available Conservation
Measures'' section).
As discussed under Factor B in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species,'' Spiranthes is threatened by collecting. If it is listed,
collecting of Spiranthes would be prohibited under the Act in cases of
(1) removal and reduction to possession from lands under Federal
jurisdiction, or malicious damage or destruction on such lands; and (2)
removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying Spiranthes in
knowing violation of any State law or regulation, including State
criminal trespass law. Such provisions are difficult to enforce, and
publication of critical habitat descriptions and maps would make
Spiranthes delitescens more vulnerable and increase enforcement
problems. All involved parties and principal landowners are aware of
the location and importance of protecting this species' habitat.
Habitat protection will be addressed through the recovery process and
through the section 7 provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is not
prudent to designate critical habitat for Spiranthes delitescens.
Protection of the habitat of these species will be addressed
through the recovery process and the section 7 consultation process.
The Service believes that Federal involvement in the areas where these
species occur can be identified without the designation of critical
habitat. Therefore, the Service finds that designation of critical
habitat for these three species is not prudent.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition,
recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions
against certain practices. Recognition through listing encourages and
results in conservation actions by Federal, State, and private
agencies, groups, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land
acquisition and cooperation with the states and requires that recovery
actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required
of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities
involving listed species are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
Part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
All three taxa in this rule occur on the Coronado National Forest.
Lilaeopsis and the Sonora tiger salamander also occur on Fort Huachuca,
managed by the Department of the Army. In addition, Lilaeopsis occurs
on Service lands at San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge and at the
BLM's San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area.
Examples of Federal actions that may affect the three species
addressed in this rule include managing recreation, road construction,
livestock grazing, granting rights-of-ways, stock tank development and
maintenance, and military activities on Fort Huachuca. These and other
Federal actions would require formal section 7 consultation if the
action agency determines that the proposed action may affect listed
species. Development on private or State lands requiring permits from
Federal agencies, such as 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, would also be subject to the section 7 consultation process.
Federal actions not affecting the species, as well as Actions that are
not federally funded or permitted, would not require section 7
consultation.
Pursuant to 50 CFR 402.10(a), the Coronado National Forest
conferred with the Service on the effects of issuance of grazing
permits in the Duquesne, Campini, and San Rafael allotments within the
range of the Sonora tiger salamander. The Service determined that
issuance of the permits would not likely jeopardize the continued
existence of the salamander provided that stock tank maintenance and
management plans were promptly developed and implemented for the
allotments. These plans would ensure the maintenance of quality aquatic
habitat for the Sonora tiger salamander.
The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.61,
17.62, and 17.63 set forth a series of general trade prohibitions and
exceptions that apply to all endangered plants. All trade prohibitions
of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, implemented by 50 CFR 17.61, apply.
These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity,
sell or offer for sale listed species in interstate or foreign
commerce, or to remove and reduce to possession listed species from
areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed as
endangered, the Act prohibits the malicious damage or destruction on
areas under Federal jurisdiction and the removal, cutting, digging up,
or damaging or destroying endangered
[[Page 688]]
plants in knowing violation of any state law or regulation, including
state criminal trespass law. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the
Service and state conservation agencies.
The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 also provide for the issuance of
permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving
endangered species under certain circumstances. Such permits are
available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species. It is anticipated that few trade permits would
ever be sought or issued for Lilaeopsis or Spiranthes because these
species are not common in cultivation or in the wild.
The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all
endangered wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, in
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, or collect; or to attempt any such conduct), import
or export, ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of
commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce any listed species. It also is illegal to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been
taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and
state conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23.
Such permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in
connection with otherwise lawful activities.
It is the policy of the Service (59 FR 34272) to identify to the
maximum extent practicable at the time an animal species is listed
those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public
awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities
with a species' range. The Service believes that, based on the best
available information, the following are examples of actions that will
not result in a violation of section 9.
Actions that would not result in a violation of section 9 for
either Lilaeopsis or Spiranthes would include--
(1) Otherwise lawful activities on private lands undertaken by the
landowner since plants are not protected from taking by the private
landowner of the habitat by the Act; or
(2) federally-approved projects, such as issuance of livestock
grazing permits, road construction, and dredge and fill activities,
when such activity is conducted in accordance with section 7 of the
Act.
Actions that would not result in violation of section 9 for Sonora
tiger salamander would include--
(1) Recreational activities in the range of the Sonora tiger
salamander that do not result in physical damage to stock tanks,
vegetation at stock tanks, stock fences, and riparian habitats between
occupied stock tanks; and that do not involve relocation of salamanders
or nonnative aquatic vertebrates;
(2) Well-managed livestock grazing of uplands, including running of
cattle, and development, operation and maintenance of range
improvements; or
(3) Federally-approved projects, such as issuance of livestock
grazing permits, road construction, and dredge and fill activities,
when such activity is conducted in accordance with section 7 or section
10 of the Act.
The Service has determined that the following activities could
potentially result in a section 9 violation. As section 9 is somewhat
limited in the protection provided to plants, the possible actions that
could result in a section 9 violation for Lilaeopsis or Spiranthes
could include--
(1) Malicious destruction or removal on lands under Federal
jurisdiction;
(2) Criminal trespass onto private lands and then removal of plants
from those lands; or
(3) Removal of plants without appropriate State permits.
Some of the possible actions that could result in a section 9
violation for Sonora tiger salamander include:
(1) Unauthorized handling, collecting, or harming of Sonora tiger
salamanders;
(2) Destroying or altering berms or draining of aquatic sites
occupied by the salamander and diverting flows upstream of breeding
sites;
(3) Livestock grazing or watering at sites occupied by the
salamander when such activity results in trampling of salamanders;
(4) Actions that result in the destruction or removal of aquatic or
emergent vegetation, or shoreline vegetation at aquatic sites occupied
by the species;
(5) Stocking of fish, bullfrogs other subspecies of Ambystoma
tigrinum, or other organisms within the range of the Sonora tiger
salamander that prey on or transmit diseases to Sonora tiger
salamanders;
(6) Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals, silt, or other
pollutants into waters supporting the species; and
(7) Pesticide applications at or near occupied aquatic sites in
violation of label restrictions.
Questions as to whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 should be addressed to the Service's Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests for
copies of the regulations on listed plants and wildlife and inquiries
about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species/Permits, P.O. Box 1306,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (telephone 505/248-6920; facsimile 505/
248-6922).
National Environmental Policy Act
The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental
Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be
prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to Section
4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice
outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in
the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Required Determinations
The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to contain no information collection
requirements. This rulemaking was not subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are Angie Brooks and Jim
Rorabaugh, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal
[[Page 689]]
Regulations, is amended as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following in
alphabetical order, under ``Amphibians,'' to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIES
------------------------------------------- Historic range Vertebrate population where Status When Critical Special rules
Common name Scientific name endangered or threatened listed habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Amphibians...........
* * * * * * *
Salamander, Sonora Ambystoma tigrinum U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico. Entire....................... E........... 600 NA............. NA
tiger. stebbinsi.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Section 17.12(h) is amended by adding the following two species,
in alphabetical order under ``Orchidaceae'' and ``Unbelliferae'' to the
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Status When Critical habitat Special rules
Scientific name Common name listed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Orchidaceae--Orchid Family:
* * * * * * *
Spiranthes delitescens............ Canelo Hills ladies'-tresses... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico... E............. 600 NA.............. NA
* * * * * * *
Umbelliferae--Parsley Family:
* * * * * * *
Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. Huachuca water umbel........... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico... E............. 600 NA.............. NA
recurva.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: December 24, 1996.
Jay L. Gerst,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-130 Filed 1-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P