[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71838-71854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34413]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF37


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Determination of Critical Habitat for the Huachuca Water Umbel, a Plant

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose 
designation of critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended (Act), for Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva, 
the Huachuca water umbel, a plant. Proposed critical habitat includes a 
total of 83.9 kilometers (52.1 miles) of streams or rivers in Cochise 
and Santa Cruz counties, Arizona. If this proposal is made final, 
section 7 of the Act would prohibit destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out 
by any Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider 
economic and other impacts of specifying any particular area as 
critical habitat. We solicit data and comments from the public on all 
aspects of this proposal, including data on the economic and other 
impacts of the designation. We may revise this proposal to incorporate 
or address new information received during the comment period.

DATES: We will accept comments until March 1, 1999. We will hold a 
public hearing on this proposed rule; we will publish the date and 
location of this hearing in the Federal Register and local newspapers 
at least 15 days prior to the hearing.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and materials to the Field Supervisor, Arizona 
Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 
West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona, 85021-4951. Comments 
and materials received will be available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Gatz, Endangered Species 
Coordinator, at the above address (telephone 602/640-2720 ext. 240; 
facsimile 602/640-2730).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva (referred to as Lilaeopsis in 
this proposed rule), the Huachuca water umbel, is a plant found in 
cienegas (desert marshes), streams and springs in southern Arizona and 
northern Sonora, Mexico, typically in 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 Lilaeopsis 
(Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Lowe 1985, Ohmart and Anderson 1982, 
Minckley and Brown 1982).

[[Page 71839]]

    Cienegas, perennial streams, and rivers in the desert southwest are 
extremely rare. The Arizona Game and Fish Department (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 in historical times. Lilaeopsis occupies small 
portions of these rare habitats.
    Lilaeopsis is an herbaceous, semiaquatic to occasionally fully 
aquatic 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 
inches (in.)) in diameter and often 3-5 centimeters (cm) (1-2 in.) 
tall, 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 (root-like stems); 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 at different sites along streams.
    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 west of 
the continental divide.

Previous Federal Action

    We included Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva, then under the 
name L. recurva, as a category 2 candidate in our November 28, 1983 (45 
FR 82480), and September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526), plant notices of 
review. Category 2 candidates were defined as those taxa for which we 
had data indicating that listing was possibly appropriate but for which 
we lacked substantial information on vulnerability and threats to 
support proposed listing rules. In our February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), 
and September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144), notices, we included Lilaeopsis 
as a category 1 candidate. Category 1 candidates were defined as those 
taxa for which we had sufficient information on biological 
vulnerability and threats to support proposed listing rules but for 
which issuance of proposals to list were precluded by other higher-
priority listing activities. Beginning with our combined plant and 
animal notice of review published in the Federal Register on February 
28, 1996 (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of multiple 
categories of candidates and only taxa meeting the definition of former 
category 1 candidates are now recognized as candidates for listing 
purposes.
    On June 3, 1993, we received a petition, dated May 31, 1993, from a 
coalition of conservation organizations (Suckling et al. 1993) to list 
Lilaeopsis and two other species as endangered species pursuant to the 
Act. On December 14, 1993, we published a notice of 90-day finding that 
the petition presented substantial information indicating that listing 
of Lilaeopsis may be warranted, and requested public comments and 
biological data on the status of the species (58 FR 65325).
    On April 3, 1995, we published a proposal (60 FR 16836) to list 
Lilaeopsis and two other species as endangered, and again requested 
public comments and biological data on their status. After 
consideration of comments and information received during the comment 
period, we listed Lilaeopsis as endangered on January 6, 1997.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time we 
determine a species to be endangered or threatened.

[[Page 71840]]

At the time of listing, we determined that any potential benefits of 
critical habitat beyond that of listing, when weighed against the 
negative impacts of disclosing site-specific localities, did not yield 
an overall benefit to the species, and, therefore, that designation of 
critical habitat was not prudent.
    On October 31, 1997, Southwest Center for Biological Diversity 
filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Arizona against the 
Department of Interior for failure to designate critical habitat for 
the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum) and 
Lilaeopsis (Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Bruce Babbitt, 
Secretary of the Department of the Interior; CIV 97-704 TUC ACM). On 
October 7, 1998, Alfredo C. Marquez, Senior U.S. District Judge, issued 
an order stating that ``There being no evidence that designation of 
critical habitat for the pygmy-owl and water umbel is not prudent, the 
Secretary shall, without further delay, decide whether or not to 
designate critical habitat for the pygmy-owl and water umbel based on 
the best scientific and commercial information available.''
    On November 25, 1998, in response to the Plaintiff's motion to 
clarify his initial order, Judge Marquez further ordered ``that within 
30 days of the date of this Order, the Secretary shall issue the 
Proposed Rules for designating critical habitat for the pygmy-owl and 
water umbel . . . and that within six months of issuing the Proposed 
Rules, the Secretary shall issue final decisions regarding the 
designation of critical habitat for the pygmy-owl and water umbel.''
    Absent the court's order, the processing of this proposed rule 
would not conform with our Fiscal Year 1998 and 1999 Listing Priority 
Guidance, published on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance 
clarifies the order in which we will process rulemakings giving highest 
priority (Tier 1) to processing emergency rules to add species to the 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; second priority 
(Tier 2) to processing final determinations on proposals to add species 
to the lists, processing new listing proposals, processing 
administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the lists, 
delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a limited 
number of proposed and final rules to delist or reclassify species; and 
third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed and final rules 
designating critical habitat. The Service's Southwest Region is 
currently working on Tier 2 actions; however, we are undertaking this 
Tier 3 action in order to comply with the above-mentioned court order.

Habitat Characteristics

    The physical and biological habitat features essential to the 
conservation of Lilaeopsis include a riparian plant community that is 
stable over time and relatively free of nonnative species, a stream 
channel that is stable and subject to periodic flooding, refugial sites 
(sites safe from catastrophic flooding), and a permanently wetted 
substrate (soil) for growth and reproduction of the plant.
    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 (small isolated sites) where competition between different 
plant species 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 1800s. Habitat on 
the upper San Pedro River is recovering, and Lilaeopsis has recently 
recolonized small reaches of the main channel.
    Lilaeopsis can occur in backwaters and side channels of streams and 
rivers, and in 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 Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum (watercress) (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 flow 
regime, 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 the species 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 square-meter (sq-m) (5,385 square-foot (sq-ft)) patch of 
habitat (Gori et al. 1990). Some populations are as small as 1-2 sq-m 
(11-22 sq-ft). 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 difficult 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 genetically distinct 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 out-compete Lilaeopsis.
    Lilaeopsis has been documented from 25 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 six of the sites. The 19 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. 
New information received during the comment periods and in section 7

[[Page 71841]]

conferences and consultations for proposed Federal actions has 
indicated that some of these sites are larger in extent than previously 
known. This is likely due to the dynamic nature of riparian habitats.
    Nine Lilaeopsis populations occur in the San Pedro River watershed 
in Arizona and Sonora, on sites owned or managed by private landowners, 
the Fort Huachuca Military Reservation, the Coronado National Forest, 
and the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Tucson Field Office. 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, BLM, pers. comm. 1996).
    The four Lilaeopsis populations in the Santa Cruz watershed 
probably represent very small remnants of larger populations that may 
have occurred in the extensive riparian and aquatic habitat formerly 
existing 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-
kilometer (km) (80-mile (mi)) reach that flowed perennially from the 
Tubac area south to the United States/Mexico border and intermittently 
from Tubac north to the Tucson area (Davis 1986).
    Davis, Jr. (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 at el. 
1991).
    Lilaeopsis remains in small areas (generally less than 1 sq-m (10.8 
sq-ft)) in Black Draw, 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 population on that pond.
    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). 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).

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 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 consideration 
or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon determination that 
such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are 
necessary to bring an endangered species or a threatened species to the 
point at which listing under Act is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to base critical habitat 
proposals upon the best scientific and commercial data available, 
taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant 
impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may 
exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical 
habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of 
the species (section 4(b)(2) of the Act).
    Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation 
activities for a listed species by identifying areas, both occupied and 
unoccupied, that contain or could develop the essential habitat 
features (primary constituent elements), described below, and that are 
essential for the conservation of a listed species. Designation of 
critical habitat alerts the public as well as land-managing agencies to 
the importance of these areas.
    Critical habitat also identifies areas that may require special 
management considerations or protection, and may provide additional 
protection to areas where significant threats to the species have been 
identified. Critical habitat receives protection from the prohibition 
against destruction or adverse modification through required 
consultation under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried 
out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires 
conferences on Federal actions that are likely to result in the adverse 
modification or destruction of proposed critical habitat. Aside from 
the protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not 
provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical 
habitat.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act prohibits Federal agencies from funding, 
authorizing, or carrying out actions likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a threatened or endangered species, or that are likely to 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. ``Jeopardize the 
continued existence'' is defined as an appreciable reduction in the 
likelihood of survival and recovery of a listed species. ``Destruction 
or adverse modification'' of critical habitat occurs when a Federal 
action significantly reduces the value of critical habitat for the 
survival and recovery of the listed species for which critical habitat 
was designated. Thus, the definitions of ``jeopardy'' to the species 
and ``adverse modification'' of critical habitat are similar.
    Designating critical habitat does not, in itself, lead to recovery 
of a listed species. Designation does not create a management plan, 
establish numerical population goals, prescribe specific management 
actions (inside or outside of critical habitat), or directly affect 
areas not designated as critical habitat. Specific management 
recommendations for critical habitat are most appropriately addressed 
in recovery plans and management plans, and through section 7 
consultations.
    Critical habitat identifies specific areas, both occupied and 
unoccupied, that are essential to the conservation of a listed species 
and that may require special management considerations or protection. 
Areas that do not currently contain all of the primary constituent 
elements but that could develop them in the future may be essential to 
the conservation of the species and may be designated as critical 
habitat.
    Section 3(5)(C) of the Act generally requires that not all areas 
potentially occupied by a species be designated as critical habitat. 
Therefore, not all areas containing the primary constituent elements 
are necessarily essential to the

[[Page 71842]]

conservation of the species. Areas that contain one or more of the 
primary constituent elements, but that are not included within critical 
habitat boundaries, may still be important to a species' conservation 
and may be considered under other parts of the Act or other 
conservation laws and regulations.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (primary 
constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the 
species and that may require special management considerations or 
protection. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
     Space for individual and population growth, and for normal 
behavior;
     Food, water, air, light, minerals or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
     Cover or shelter;
     Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring, 
germination, or seed dispersal; and
     Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for Lilaeopsis 
include, but are not limited to, the habitat components that provide:
    (1) Sufficient perennial base flows to provide a permanently wetted 
substrate for growth and reproduction of Lilaeopsis;
    (2) A stream channel that is stable and subject to periodic 
flooding that provides for rejuvenation of the riparian plant community 
and produces open microsites for Lilaeopsis expansion;
    (3) A riparian plant community that is stable over time and in 
which nonnative species do not exist or are at a density that has 
little or no adverse effect on resources available for Lilaeopsis 
growth and reproduction; and
    (4) Refugial sites in each watershed and in each stream reach, 
including but not limited to springs or backwaters of mainstem rivers, 
that allow each population to survive catastrophic floods and 
recolonize larger areas.
    We selected critical habitat areas to provide for the conservation 
of Lilaeopsis throughout the remaining portion of its geographic range 
in the United States. At least one segment of critical habitat is 
proposed in each watershed containing the species, with the exception 
of the Rio Yaqui watershed where the plants are found on the San 
Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge. That population is secure under 
current management and, therefore, does not require special management 
considerations or protection.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    The proposed critical habitat areas described below, combined with 
protected areas either known or suspected to contain some of the 
primary constituent elements but not proposed as critical habitat, 
constitute our best assessment at this time of the areas needed for the 
species' conservation. However, the Arizona Plant Recovery Team will be 
providing guidance on the recovery planning for this species and may 
provide additional guidance regarding the significance of areas 
proposed for critical habitat as well as additional areas not yet 
proposed. Upon the team's completion of recovery planning guidance, we 
will evaluate the recommendations and reexamine if and where critical 
habitat is appropriate.
    Critical habitat being proposed for Lilaeopsis includes areas that 
currently sustain the species and areas that do not currently sustain 
the species but offer recovery habitat. Protection of this proposed 
critical habitat would be essential for the conservation of the 
species. The species is already extirpated from a significant portion 
of its historical range. Eight disjunct areas are being proposed as 
critical habitat; all proposed areas are in Santa Cruz and Cochise 
counties, Arizona, and include stream courses and adjacent areas out to 
the beginning of upland vegetation.
    The following general areas are proposed as critical habitat (see 
legal descriptions for exact critical habitat boundaries): 
approximately 2.0 km (1.25 mi) of Sonoita Creek southwest of Sonoita; 
approximately 4.4 km (2.7 mi) of the Santa Cruz River on both sides of 
Forest Road 61, plus approximately 3 km (1.9 mi) of an unnamed 
tributary to the east of the river; approximately 5.4 km (3.4 mi) of 
Scotia Canyon upstream from near Forest Road 48; approximately 1.1 km 
(0.7 mi) of Sunnyside Canyon near Forest Road 117 in the Huachuca 
Mountains; approximately 6.1 km (3.8 mi) of Garden Canyon near its 
confluence with Sawmill Canyon; approximately 3.5 km (2.2 mi) at Lone 
Mountain Canyon, plus approximately 1.7 km (1.0 mi) of an unnamed 
tributary and 1.8 km (1.1 mi) of Bear Creek; an approximate 0.7-km 
(0.4-mi) reach of Joaquin Canyon; and approximately 54.2 km (33.7 mi) 
of the San Pedro River from the perennial flows reach north of Fairbank 
(1991 DWR) to 200 m south of Hereford, San Pedro Riparian National 
Conservation Area.
    Although the majority of the land being proposed for critical 
habitat designation is under Federal administration and management, 
some riparian systems on private land are being proposed. The Sonoita 
Creek segment and the San Rafael Valley segment within the Santa Cruz 
River drainage are privately owned. The sites in the Huachuca Mountains 
(Scotia, Sunnyside, Bear, Joaquin and a tributary of Lone Mountain, 
canyons) are managed by the Coronado National Forest. The San Pedro 
Riparian National Conservation Area is managed by the BLM. The Garden 
Canyon segment is managed by the Fort Huachuca Military Reservation.
    We are not proposing critical habitat for the four populations 
occurring in Mexico because areas outside the United States are not 
considered for critical habitat designation (50 CFR 424.12(h)). Also, a 
population occurring on Turkey Creek, Canelo Hills is small and the 
habitat is probably not capable of supporting a large population. 
Similarly, the spring sites of Sawmill Spring, Sycamore Spring, Mud 
Spring and Freeman Springs also are too small to support large stable 
populations. We believe these isolated sites are not essential to the 
conservation of the species and, therefore, are not including them in 
proposed critical habitat.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the 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 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 designated or proposed. 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 us 
on any action

[[Page 71843]]

that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed 
species or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed 
critical habitat. If a species is listed or critical habitat is 
designated 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 such a species or to 
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 consultation with us.
    Section 7(a)(4) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 402.10 require 
Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to 
result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical 
habitat. Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to 
reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances 
where critical habitat is subsequently designated. Consequently, some 
Federal agencies may request conference with us on actions for which 
formal consultation has been completed. Conference reports provide 
conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating 
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The conservation 
recommendations in a conference report are advisory.
    We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal 
agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain 
a biological opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if 
critical habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference 
report as the biological opinion when the critical habitat is 
designated, if no significant new information or changes in the action 
alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
    Activities on Federal lands that may affect Lilaeopsis or its 
critical habitat will require section 7 consultation. Activities on 
private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal agency, such 
as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act, would also be subject to the section 7 
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting the species, as 
well as actions on non-Federal lands that are not federally funded or 
permitted would not require section 7 consultation.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to describe in any proposed 
or final regulation that designates critical habitat those activities 
involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such 
habitat or that may be affected by such designation. Activities that 
may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include those that 
alter the primary constituent elements to the extent that the value of 
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of Lilaeopsis is 
appreciably reduced. We note that such activities may also jeopardize 
the continued existence of the species. Such activities may include but 
are not limited to:
    (1) Activities such as damming, water diversion, channelization, 
excess groundwater pumping, or other actions that appreciably decrease 
base flow and appreciably reduce the wetted surface area of perennial 
rivers or springs;
    (2) Activities that alter watershed characteristics in ways that 
would appreciably reduce groundwater recharge or alter natural flooding 
regimes needed to maintain natural, dynamic riparian communities. Such 
activities adverse to Lilaeopsis could include, but are not limited to, 
vegetation manipulation such as chaining or harvesting timber; 
maintaining an unnatural fire regime either through fire suppression or 
too frequent or poorly-timed prescribed fires; mining; military 
maneuvers including bombing and tank operations; residential and 
commercial development, including road building; and livestock 
overgrazing;
    (3) Activities that appreciably degrade or destroy native riparian 
communities, including but not limited to livestock overgrazing, 
clearing, cutting of live trees, introducing or encouraging the spread 
of nonnative species, and heavy recreational use; and
    (4) Activities that appreciably alter stream channel morphology 
such as sand and gravel mining, road construction, channelization, 
impoundment, overgrazing by livestock, watershed disturbances, off-road 
vehicle use, heavy or poorly planned recreational use, and other uses.
    Designation of critical habitat could affect the following agencies 
and/or actions including, but not limited to, managing recreation, road 
construction, livestock grazing, granting rights-of-way, timber 
harvesting, and other actions funded, authorized, or carried out by the 
Forest Service or BLM. Permitting of some military activities on Fort 
Huachuca may be affected by designation. 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.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
likely constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the 
Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations on listed 
wildlife and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed 
to the 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).

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of 
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas 
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such 
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as part of 
critical habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat if 
such exclusion would result in the extinction of the species concerned. 
We will conduct an economic analysis for this proposal prior to a final 
determination.

Public Comments Solicited

    It is our intent that any final action resulting from this proposal 
will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined 
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including 
whether the benefit of designation will outweigh any threats to the 
species due to designation;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of 
Lilaeopsis habitat, and what habitat is essential to the conservation 
of the species and why;
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the 
proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on 
small entities or families;
    (5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical 
habitat for Lilaeopsis such as those derived from non-consumptive uses 
(e.g., hiking, camping, bird-watching, enhanced watershed protection, 
improved air quality, increased soil retention, ``existence values,'' 
and reductions in administrative costs); and

[[Page 71844]]

    (6) The methodology we might use, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
in determining if the benefits of excluding an area from critical 
habitat outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical 
habitat.
    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we will solicit the expert opinions of three appropriate and 
independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of 
such review is to ensure listing decisions are based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send to these peer 
reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following 
publication in the Federal Register. We will invite peer reviewers to 
comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions 
and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of critical habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a 
final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final determination may differ from 
this proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. We intend to schedule one public hearing regarding this 
proposal. We will announce the date, time and place of that hearing in 
the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days prior to the 
hearing.

Executive Order 12866

    Executive order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to 
make this notice easier to understand including answers to questions 
such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the notice clearly 
stated? (2) Does the notice contain technical language or jargon that 
interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the notice 
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) 
aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the notice in the 
``Supplementary Information'' section of the preamble helpful in 
understanding the notice? What else could we do to make the notice 
easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, 
DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to this address: 
E[email protected].

Required Determinations

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this action was submitted 
for review by the Office of Management and Budget. Following issuance 
of this proposed rule, we will prepare an economic analysis to 
determine the economic consequences of designating the specific areas 
identified as critical habitat. If our economic analysis reveals that 
the economic impacts of designating any area as critical habitat 
outweigh the benefits of designation, we will exclude those areas from 
consideration, unless such exclusion will result in the extinction of 
the species. In the economic analysis, we will address any possible 
inconsistencies with other agencies' actions and any effects on 
entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and 
obligations of their recipients. This rule will not raise novel legal 
or policy issues.

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    In the economic analysis, we will determine whether designation of 
critical habitat will have a significant effect on a substantial number 
of small entities.

3. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 
804(2)).

    In the economic analysis, we will determine whether designation of 
critical habitat will cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers, 
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or 
geographic regions in the economic analysis, or (c) any significant 
adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with 
foreign-based enterprises.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In the economic analysis, we will address any effects to small 
governments resulting from designation of critical habitat and any 
Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year.

5. Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have 
significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment 
is not required. This proposed rule, if made final, will not ``take'' 
private property and will not alter the value of private property. 
Critical habitat designation is only applicable to Federal lands and to 
private lands if a Federal nexus exists. We do not designate private 
lands as critical habitat unless the areas are essential to the 
conservation of a species.

6. Federalism

    This proposed rule, if made final, will not affect the structure or 
role of States, and will not have direct, substantial, or significant 
effects on States. As previously stated, critical habitat is only 
applicable to Federal lands and to non-Federal lands when a Federal 
nexus exists. If our economic analysis reveals that the economic 
impacts of designating any area of State concern as critical habitat 
outweigh the benefits of designation, we will exclude those areas from 
consideration, unless such exclusion will result in the extinction of 
the species.

7. Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the 
Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does 
not unduly burden the judicial system and does meet the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The Office of the Solicitor 
also will review the final determination for this proposal. We will 
make every effort to ensure that the final determination contains no 
drafting errors, provides clear standards, simplifies procedures, 
reduces burden, and is clearly written such that litigation risk is 
minimized.

8. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
for which Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act is required.

9. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. We have determined that this rule 
does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment. This proposed designation of critical 
habitat, and the resulting final determination, will not require any 
actions that will affect the environment. No construction or 
destruction in any form is required under the provisions of critical 
habitat.

[[Page 71845]]

10. Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2: We understand that we must 
relate to federally recognized Tribes on a Government-to-Government 
basis. Secretarial Order 3206 American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-
Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act states 
that ``Critical habitat shall not be designated in such areas [an area 
that may impact Tribal trust resources] unless it is determined 
essential to conserve a listed species. In designating critical 
habitat, the Service shall evaluate and document the extent to which 
the conservation needs of a listed species can be achieved by limiting 
the designation to other lands.'' The proposed designation of critical 
habitat for the water umbel does not contain any Tribal lands or lands 
that we have identified as impacting Tribal trust resources.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    Authors. The primary authors of this notice are Jim Rorabaugh and 
Angela Brooks (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR 
part 17 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. In Sec. 17.12(h) revise the entry for ``Lilaeopsis schaffneriana 
ssp. recurva'' under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' to read as follows:


Sec. 17.12  Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species
--------------------------------------------------------    Historic range            Family              Status         When      Critical     Special
         Scientific name                Common name                                                                     listed      habitat      rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Flowering Plants
 
 
                                              *         *         *         *         *         *         *
Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp.      Huachuca water umbel  U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico.  Apiaceae............  E                       600    17.96(a)          NA
 recurva.
 
 
                                              *         *         *         *         *         *         *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Sec. 17.96 add critical habitat for Lilaeopsis schaffneriana 
ssp. recurva, Huachuca water umbel, as the first entry under paragraph 
(a) to read as follows:


Sec. 17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.

Family Apiaceae: Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva (Huachuca water 
umbel)

    1. Critical habitat units are depicted for Santa Cruz and 
Cochise counties, Arizona, on the maps below.
    2. Critical habitat includes the stream courses identified on 
the maps below and adjacent areas out to the beginning of upland 
vegetation.
    3. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include, 
but are not limited to, the habitat components which provide--(1) 
Sufficient perennial base flows to provide a permanently wetted 
substrate for growth and reproduction of Lilaeopsis schaffneriana 
ssp. recurva; (2) A stream channel that is stable and subject to 
periodic flooding that provides for rejuvenation of the riparian 
plant community and produces open microsites for Lilaeopsis 
expansion; (3) A riparian plant community that is stable over time 
and in which nonnative species do not exist or are at a density that 
has little or no adverse effect on resources available for 
Lilaeopsis growth and reproduction; and (4) Refugial sites in each 
watershed and in each stream reach, including but not limited to 
springs or backwaters of mainstem rivers, that allow each population 
to survive catastrophic events and recolonize larger areas.
    Map Unit 1. Santa Cruz County, Arizona. From USGS 7.5' 
quadrangle map Sonoita, Arizona. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, 
Arizona: T. 20 S., R. 16 E., beginning at a point on Sonoita Creek 
in sec. 34 at approx. 31 deg. 39' 19'' N latitude and 110 deg. 41' 
52'' W longitude proceeding downstream (westerly) to a point in sec. 
33 at approx. 31 deg. 39' 07'' N latitude and 110 deg. 42' 46'' W 
longitude covering approx. 2 km (1.25 mi.).
    Map Unit 2. Santa Cruz County, Arizona. From USGS 7.5' 
quadrangle map Lochiel, Arizona. That portion of the Santa Cruz 
River beginning in the San Rafael De La Zanja Grant approx. at 
31 deg. 22' 30'' N latitude and 110 deg. 35' 45'' W longitude 
downstream (southerly) to Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, Arizona, 
T. 24 S., R. 17 E., through secs. 11 and 14, to the south boundary 
of sec. 14 covering approx. 4.4 km (2.7 mi.). Also, a tributary that 
begins in T. 24 S., R. 17 E., sec. 13 at approx. 31 deg. 21' 10'' N 
latitude and 110 deg. 34' 16'' W longitude downstream 
(southwesterly) to its confluence with the Santa Cruz River covering 
approx. 3 km (1.9 mi.).
    Map Unit 3. Cochise County, Arizona. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle 
map Huachuca Peak, Arizona. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, 
Arizona: That portion of Scotia Canyon beginning in T. 23 S., R. 19 
E., sec. 3 at approx. 31 deg. 27' 19'' N latitude and 110 deg. 23' 
44'' W longitude downstream (southwesterly) through secs. 10, 9, 16 
and to approx. 31 deg. 25' 22'' N latitude and 110 deg. 25' 22'' W 
longitude in sec. 21 covering approx. 5.4 km (3.4 mi.).
    Map Unit 4. Cochise County, Arizona. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle 
map Huachuca Peak, Arizona. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, 
Arizona: That portion of Sunnyside Canyon beginning in T. 23 S., R. 
19 E., on the east boundary of sec. 10 downstream (southwesterly) to 
the south boundary of sec. 10 covering approx. 1.1 km (0.7 mi.).
    Map Unit 5. Cochise County, Arizona. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle 
map Miller Peak, Arizona. That portion of Garden Canyon in the Fort 
Huachuca Military Reservation beginning at approx. 31 deg. 27' 13'' 
N latitude and 110 deg. 22' 33'' W longitude downstream 
(northwesterly) to approx. 31 deg. 28' 45'' N latitude and 110 deg. 
20' 11'' W longitude covering approx. 6.1 km (3.8 mi.).
    Map Unit 6. Cochise County, Arizona. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle 
map Miller Peak, Arizona. Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, Arizona: 
That portion of Lone Mountain Canyon beginning at a point in T. 23 
S., R. 19 E., sec. 25 at approx. 31 deg. 24' 13'' N latitude and 
110 deg. 21' 54'' W longitude downstream south through sec. 36 to a 
point in T. 24 S.,

[[Page 71846]]

R. 19 E., sec. 1 at approx. 31 deg. 22' 30'' N latitude and 
110 deg.21' 47'' W longitude covering approx. 3.5 km (2.2 mi.). 
Also, an unnamed tributary beginning at a point in T. 23 S., R. 19 
E., sec. 25 at approx. 31 deg. 24' 08'' N latitude and 110 deg. 21' 
32'' W longitude downstream (southwesterly) to its confluence with 
Lone Mountain Canyon covering approx. 1.7 km (1.0 mi.). Also, that 
portion of Bear Creek beginning at a point in T. 23 S., R. 20 E., 
sec. 30 at approx. 31 deg. 23' 44'' N latitude and 110 deg. 21' 14'' 
W longitude downstream (southerly) through sec. 31, and T. 23 S., R. 
19 E., sec. 36 to its confluence with Lone Mountain Canyon covering 
approx. 1.8 km (1.1 mi.).
    Map Unit 7. Cochise County, Arizona. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle 
maps Montezuma Pass, Arizona, Campini Mesa, Arizona. Gila and Salt 
Principal Meridian, Arizona: that portion of Joaquin Canyon 
beginning at a point in T. 24 S., R. 19 E., sec. 14 at approx. 
31 deg. 20' 53'' N latitude and 110 deg. 22' 40'' W longitude 
downstream (southwesterly) to a point in sec. 13 at approx. 31 deg. 
20' 37'' N latitude and 110 deg. 22' 27'' W longitude covering 
approx. 0.7 km (0.4 mi.).
    Map Unit 8. Cochise County, Arizona. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle 
maps: Hereford, Ariz.; Tombstone SE, Ariz.; Nicksville, Ariz.; Lewis 
Springs, Ariz.; Fairbank, Ariz.; Land, Ariz. Gila and Salt Principal 
Meridian, Arizona: That portion of the San Pedro River beginning in 
the San Rafael Del Valle Grant at a point approx. 200 meters 
upstream (south) of the Hereford Road bridge at approx. 31 deg.26' 
16'' N latitude and 110 deg. 06' 24'' W longitude continuing 
downstream (northerly) through the San Rafael Del Valle Grant; T. 21 
S., R. 22 E.; T. 21 S., R 21 S.; through the San Juan De Las 
Boquilla y Nogales Grant to a point at approx. 31 deg. 48' 28'' N 
latitude and 110 deg. 12' 32'' W longitude covering approx. 54.2 km 
(33.7 mi.).

    Note: Maps follow:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 71847]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.049



[[Page 71848]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.050



[[Page 71849]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.051



[[Page 71850]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.052



[[Page 71851]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.053



[[Page 71852]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.054



[[Page 71853]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.055



[[Page 71854]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE98.056



* * * * *
    Dated: December 22, 1998.
Donald Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 98-34413 Filed 12-23-98; 3:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C