[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