[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 132 (Monday, July 12, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37441-37453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17403]



[[Page 37441]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF37


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), for the plant Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva 
(Huachuca water umbel). Designated habitat includes a total of 83.2 
kilometers (km) (51.7 miles (mi)) of streams or rivers in Cochise and 
Santa Cruz counties, Arizona. Section 7 of the Act prohibits 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity 
funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. As required 
by section 4 of the Act, we considered economic and other relevant 
impacts prior to making a final decision on the size and configuration 
of critical habitat.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The complete administrative record for this rule is on file 
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services 
Field Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 
85021-4951. The complete file for this rule is 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 var. recurva (referred to as Lilaeopsis in 
this proposed rule), the Huachuca water umbel, is a plant found in 
cienegas (desert marshes), rivers, 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).
    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 (root-like stems). 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; 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 (48 
FR 53640), 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. 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, the 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

[[Page 37442]]

Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 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.'' A 
rule proposing 83.9 kilometers (km) (52.1 miles (mi)) of streams and 
rivers in Cochise and Santa Cruz counties, Arizona, as critical habitat 
for Lilaeopsis was published December 30, 1998.
    The processing of the December 30, 1998, proposed rule and this 
final rule does not conform with our Listing Priority Guidance for 
Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, 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. Our 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 
fairly stable over time and not dominated by nonnative plant species, a 
stream channel that is relatively stable but subject to periodic 
flooding, refugial sites (sites safe from catastrophic flooding), and a 
substrate (soil) that is permanently wet or nearly so, 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 among 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).
    In rivers and streams, 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 1995, demonstrating the 
dynamic and often precarious nature of occurrences within a riparian 
system (Al Anderson, Grey Hawk Ranch, in litt. 1995).
    The 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 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 Huachuca water 
umbel populations, where in 1995 it occupied about 64 percent of a 
1,420-m (4,660-ft) reach (Falk 1998).
    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 and 
Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuges, Arizona, appears to be 
successful (Warren 1991; Kevin Cobble, San Bernardino National Wildlife 
Refuge, pers. comm. 1999). In 1991, Lilaeopsis was transplanted from 
Black Draw into new ponds and other wetlands at San Bernardino Refuge. 
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, Service, pers. comm. 1994; and 
Peter Warren, Arizona Nature Conservancy, pers. comm. 1993) that other 
species such as Typha sp. will out-compete Lilaeopsis. A recent 
introduction to Leslie Canyon Refuge is successful and the plant 
appears to be expanding its distribution there (K. Cobble, pers. comm. 
1999).
    Lilaeopsis has been documented from 26 sites in Santa Cruz, 
Cochise, and Pima counties, Arizona, and in adjacent Sonora, Mexico, 
west of the continental divide (K. Cobble, pers. comm. 1999; Haas and 
Frye 1997; 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 20 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)

[[Page 37443]]

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-km 
(80-mi) reach that flowed perennially from the United States/Mexico 
border northward to Tubac area 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).
    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, 
including Leslie Canyon. A population at House Pond on private land 
near Black Draw was thought to be extirpated, but was recently 
rediscovered there (K. Cobble, pers. comm. 1999).
    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 recently extirpated (Gori et al. 1990), but 
another population was found in 1997 on Cajon Bonito near its 
confluence with Black Draw in Sonora (K. Cobble, pers. comm. 1999). 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 the Act is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we 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 that contain the 
physical and biological features essential for the conservation of that 
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 requires Federal agencies to consult 
with us to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or 
endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. ``Jeopardize the continued 
existence'' (of a species) is defined as an appreciable reduction in 
the likelihood of survival and recovery of a listed species. 
``Destruction or adverse modification'' (of critical habitat) is 
defined as a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes 
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 nearly identical (50 CFR Sec. 402.02).
    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, 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 habitat components necessary for the primary biological needs 
of a species 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 states that, ``except in those 
circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not 
include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the 
threatened or endangered species.'' All areas containing the primary 
constituent elements are not necessarily essential to the conservation 
of the species. Areas that contain one or more of the primary 
constituent elements, but that are not included within critical habitat

[[Page 37444]]

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 Sec. 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical 
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features 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 or 
nearly permanently wetted substrate for growth and reproduction of 
Lilaeopsis;
    (2) A stream channel that is relatively stable, but 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 relatively 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) In streams and rivers, refugial sites in each watershed and in 
each 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 
designated 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.

Critical Habitat Designation

    The critical habitat areas described below, combined with other 
habitat either known or suspected to contain some of the primary 
constituent elements but not in need of special management, 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 recovery planning for this species and may 
provide additional guidance regarding the significance of areas 
designated as critical habitat or the need to designate other areas. 
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 designated for Lilaeopsis includes areas that 
currently sustain the species and areas that do not currently sustain 
the species but offer recovery habitat. The species is already 
extirpated from a significant portion of its historical range. Seven 
disjunct areas are designated 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 designated 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 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of Lone 
Mountain Canyon and approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of Rattlesnake Canyon 
and 1.0 km (0.6 mi) of an unnamed canyon, both of which are tributaries 
to Lone Mountain Canyon; approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of Bear Canyon; 
an approximate 0.9-km (0.6-mi) reach of an unnamed tributary to Bear 
Canyon; and approximately 54.2 km (33.7 mi) of the San Pedro River from 
the perennial flows reach north of Fairbank (Arizona Department of 
Water Resources 1991) to 200 meters (.13 mi) south of Hereford, San 
Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area.
    Although the majority of lands designated as critical habitat is 
under Federal administration and management, some riparian systems on 
private land are being designated. The Sonoita Creek segment and the 
San Rafael Valley segment within the Santa Cruz River drainage are 
privately owned. The upper portion of Scotia Canyon is privately owned, 
but is expected to soon be acquired through land exchange by the 
Coronado National Forest. Other sites in the Huachuca Mountains (lower 
Scotia Canyon, Sunnyside, Bear, and Lone Mountain canyons, and 
tributaries of the latter two 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.
    Several areas where Lilaeopsis occurs are not designated as 
critical habitat. We recognize the importance of all lands occupied or 
potentially occupied by Lilaeopsis, but, as discussed below, not all 
such areas were designated because some did not meet the designation 
criteria (i.e., were too small to support a stable Lilaeopsis 
population over time, and/or were already protected). Also, areas 
outside the United States are not considered for critical habitat 
designation (50 CFR 424.12(h)). Several sites were considered small and 
not capable of supporting large stable populations, including Turkey 
Creek in the Canelo Hills, Sawmill Spring, Sycamore Spring, Mud Spring, 
and Freeman Springs.
    We believe these small, isolated sites are important, but may not 
be essential to the conservation of the species, and in the case of 
Sawmill Spring and Freeman Spring, may not require special management 
considerations or protection above that currently provided. Freeman 
Spring is fenced to prevent livestock grazing. Sawmill Spring is an 
isolated site near the western boundary of Fort Huachuca at which the 
only significant threats are a trail to the site and wildfire. 
Recreational use along the trail does not appear to be adversely 
affecting the species, and Fort Huachuca has committed to various 
measures to lessen the threat of wildfire.
    Also not designated are portions of Bear Canyon above and below the 
critical habitat reach and several isolated populations in the Bear and 
Lone Mountain canyons complex. We believe the best habitat in this area 
is included in the designated reaches of the two canyons and their 
tributaries. Other reaches are intermittent with limited habitat for 
Lilaeopsis, or are

[[Page 37445]]

small, relatively isolated sites. Also, designation of the critical 
habitat reach provides some protection to at least the downstream reach 
of Bear Canyon due to conservation of watershed values.
    The 0.7-km (0.4-mi) reach of Joaquin Canyon, proposed as Unit 7, is 
also not designated. This reach is currently administered by the 
Coronado National Forest, but is expected to be exchanged into private 
ownership in the near future. During the open comment period, we met 
with both the Coronado National Forest and prospective new landowners. 
Through these discussions we learned that the future owners plan to 
continue current grazing practices, but no other uses of the property 
are anticipated. Further, the effects of grazing are moderated at this 
site because the stream channel is largely bedrock and not easily 
subject to structural damage. Thus, we do not consider this area to be 
in need of special management consideration or protection. In summary, 
because of the small size of the Joaquin Canyon habitat and the low 
degree of threats to the area, we did not designate this area as 
critical habitat, because it is neither essential to the conservation 
of the species nor in need of special management or protection. The 
area proposed as Unit 8 now becomes Unit 7.

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)(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. Conferencing on Lilaeopsis critical habitat was requested 
twice, including once by the Department of the Army, Fort Huachuca, in 
regard to military activities, and once by the Coronado National Forest 
on their forest-wide grazing program. These conferences are not yet 
complete. With designation of critical habitat, these conferences are 
now section 7 consultations.
    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, will 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 will 
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 diminished. We note that such activities will also likely 
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 rivers, 
streams, cienegas, 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 critical habitat 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; road construction; and 
overgrazing that reduces fire frequency or otherwise degrades 
watersheds;
    (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, 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. These activities are already 
subject to section 7 consultation because of the listing of Lilaeopsis.
    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).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the December 30, 1998, proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat, we requested all interested parties to submit comments or 
information that might bear on the listing or designation of critical 
habitat for Lilaeopsis. The first comment period closed March 1, 1999. 
We reopened the comment period from April 15 to May 15, 1999, to once 
again solicit comments on the proposed

[[Page 37446]]

rule and to accept comments on the draft economic analysis. Comments 
received from March 2 to April 14, 1999, were entered into the 
administrative record during the second comment period. All appropriate 
State agencies, Federal agencies, County governments, scientific 
organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and invited 
to comment. We published newspaper notices inviting public comment in 
the following newspapers in Arizona: Arizona Republic, Tucson Citizen, 
Arizona Daily Star, Sierra Vista Herald, Green Valley News and Sun, The 
Bulletin, The Tombstone Tumbleweed, and Nogales International. The 
inclusive dates of publication were January 4 to 12, 1999, for the 
initial comment period; January 26 to February 4, 1999, to advertise 
the public hearings; and April 21 to 29, 1999, for the second comment 
period.
    We held three public hearings on the proposed rule, at Coolidge 
(February 10, 1999), Sierra Vista (February 11, 1999), and Tucson, 
Arizona (February 12, 1999). The hearings were also held to solicit 
comments on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the 
cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum (63 FR 
71820). A notice of hearings and locations was published in the Federal 
Register on January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3923). A total of 89 people 
attended the public hearings, including 10 in Coolidge, 28 in Sierra 
Vista, and 51 in Tucson. Transcripts of these hearings are available 
for inspection (see ADDRESSES section).
    We contacted three experts on the species that agreed to peer 
review the proposed critical habitat designation. One of those peer 
reviewers submitted comments. He concluded that ``the habitat sites 
designated, to the best of my knowledge, seem reasonable enough to 
guarantee its (Lilaeopsis') survival--even though I would prefer 
additional ones.''
    A total of 8 oral and 41 written comments were received during the 
two comment periods. Of the 8 oral comments, 3 supported critical 
habitat designation, 4 were opposed to designation, and 1 provided 
additional information but did not support or oppose the proposal. Of 
the written comments, 22 supported designation, 9 were opposed to it, 
and 10 provided additional information only, or were nonsubstantive or 
not relevant to the proposed designation. In total, oral and written 
comments were received from 5 Federal agencies, 2 State agencies, 4 
local governments, and 38 private organizations, companies, or 
individuals.
    We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and new 
data regarding critical habitat and Lilaeopsis. Comments of a similar 
nature are grouped into a number of general issues. Fifteen general 
issues were identified relating specifically to critical habitat. These 
are addressed in the following summary.
    Issue 1: The Service did not allow for an appropriate level of 
local government involvement in the designation of critical habitat. 
Several commenters said that cities and counties should have greater 
say in critical habitat designations, while one commenter would have us 
not consider comments from local governments.
    Service Response: The Act requires that we ``give actual notice of 
the proposed regulation (including the complete text of the regulation) 
to* * *each county or equivalent jurisdiction in which the species is 
believed to occur, and invite the comment of such agency, and each 
jurisdiction'' (section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii)). The comments of local 
governments are then entered into the administrative record for the 
proposed regulation and are considered when developing proposed or 
final rules. However, we do not weight comments from a local government 
any more or less than other comments. Instead, we are required to base 
our decision on the ``best scientific data available and after taking 
into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat'' (section 
4(b)(2) of the Act). The proposed rule was sent to Cochise, Santa Cruz, 
and Pima county offices, the Southeastern Arizona Council of 
Governments, and the cities/towns of Patagonia, Benson, and Sierra 
Vista. Of these local governments, comments were received from the City 
of Benson. Those comments were considered in development of this final 
rule.
    Issue 2: Lilaeopsis receives an adequate level of protection on the 
San Pedro River and at Fort Huachuca, and therefore critical habitat 
should not be designated in these areas.
    Service Response: The San Pedro River critical habitat unit is 
administered by the BLM, while designated critical habitat on Fort 
Huachuca (Garden Canyon) is administered by the Department of Defense. 
Because of the protection afforded Lilaeopsis through section 7 
consultations on these Federal lands resulted from listing of the 
species, there is little additional benefit of critical habitat 
designation in occupied habitats because Lilaeopsis occurs patchily in 
both Garden Canyon and the San Pedro River, and a project that affects 
one portion of a stream course will affect downstream and perhaps 
upstream reaches as well.
    Given the above, we fundamentally agree that critical habitat 
designation provides no additional protection beyond that provided 
through listing the species under the Act. However, given the outcome 
of litigation surrounding this and other critical habitat designations, 
we felt that the prudent course would be to designate critical habitat 
in areas where Federal actions are likely to affect that habitat.
    Issue 3: Most of the areas proposed for critical habitat do not 
have constituent elements and thus should not be designated. Occupied 
habitat is adequate to ensure conservation of the species, thus 
unoccupied sites should not be designated. In particular, one commenter 
said that the San Pedro River channel is too unstable to support 
Lilaeopsis, no refugia exist where the species can escape the effects 
of flooding, and it is dominated by nonnative species, such as Typha 
spp. (cattail). This commenter also said that the San Pedro River 
should not be designated critical habitat because flows could be 
depleted or halted due to diversions or pumping in the upper watershed 
in Mexico.
    Service Response: Although Lilaeopsis occurs within all of the 
critical habitat units, the extent of occupied habitat and areas where 
all of the constituent elements are found are somewhat dynamic and 
change within these systems depending on floods, drought, changes in 
channel morphology, and other factors. Some portions of stream segments 
designated as critical habitat have very little potential to support 
Lilaeopsis, such as the majority of the upper portion of Lone Mountain 
Canyon, but may support the species and constituent elements in wet 
years.
    Nevertheless, these segments are hydrologically connected to, and 
part of, the drainages that support the most important populations of 
Lilaeopsis. In the case of upper Lone Mountain Canyon, populations of 
Lilaeopsis occur both upstream and downstream of this reach; thus not 
only is this segment likely ephemeral habitat which affects downstream 
populations hydrologically, it is also a link that can allow for flow 
of individuals and genetic material among populations. Such flow is 
essential for genetic diversity and for recolonization if populations 
are extirpated (Shafer 1990).
    In regard to the San Pedro River, the reach designated as critical 
habitat supports six populations or clusters of

[[Page 37447]]

populations that are distributed from the southern to northern 
boundaries of the reach. This reach is broadly defined by the Arizona 
Department of Water Resources (1991) as perennial throughout, although 
in most years flow is greatly reduced and many places are dry 
immediately before the summer rains begin in July.
    The commenter's suggestion that the San Pedro River channel is too 
unstable; no refugia exist for persistence during floods; and 
nonnatives such as Typha are common is belied by the fact that six 
populations exist within the critical habitat reach, despite changes in 
channel morphology and periodic flooding. Also, Typha is a native 
emergent plant, although other non-natives, particularly Rorippa 
nasturtium-aquaticum, are common in the San Pedro River. Habitat 
suitability varies within the San Pedro critical habitat unit, but we 
have no reason to believe that any significant portion of it is 
unsuitable. With the removal of grazing and off-road vehicles since 
1989, the channel has apparently become more stable, emergent and 
riparian vegetation has increased in the river channel, and Lilaeopsis 
was rediscovered on the river. The recent introduction of beavers to 
the system should further hasten the recovery of cienega conditions and 
Lilaeopsis habitat. Groundwater pumping or diversions, or other changes 
in the watershed of the San Pedro River in Mexico or Arizona may affect 
the ability of the river to support Lilaeopsis and to provide 
constituent elements.
    Issue 4: The economic effects of designating critical habitat 
greatly outweigh any benefits of designating critical habitat. The 
designation will have harmful impacts on the quality of life, 
education, and economic stability. In particular, designation of 
critical habitat on the San Pedro River would change groundwater 
pumping, which could result in closure of Fort Huachuca and subsequent 
devastating effects to the economy of Sierra Vista.
    Service Response: Areas proposed as critical habitat may be 
excluded from designation if ``the benefits of such exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of specifying the areas as part of the critical habitat,'' 
unless it is determined that ``failure to designate such area as 
critical habitat will result in extinction of the species'' (section 
4(b)(2) of the Act). As discussed in our response to issue 2, 
additional conservation benefits of designation for most species, are 
few if any.
    The economic analysis (McKenney et al. 1999), based on our view 
that no restrictions beyond those resulting from listing the species 
will result from critical habitat designation, found that the critical 
habitat designation would have no economic effect on activities. Based 
on our experience with consultation on Lilaeopsis as well as completed 
and ongoing conferences on the species' proposed critical habitat, we 
do not foresee any action that would result in a finding of destruction 
or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat that would not 
also result in a finding of jeopardy to the species. As a result, no 
effects to the economy of Sierra Vista or other cities or towns are 
anticipated from designation of critical habitat, and therefore the 
benefits of excluding these areas do not outweigh the benefits of 
including them as critical habitat.
    Issue 5: Designation of critical habitat has significant takings 
implications; thus a takings implications assessment, as required by 
Executive Order 12630, must be conducted. Also, a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis should have been done.
    Service Response: Please see the discussions under the ``Required 
Determinations'' section of this final rule that discusses takings 
implications assessments.
    Issue 6: San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge should be 
designated critical habitat instead of the San Pedro River.
    Service Response: In determining what areas are critical habitat, 
we consider physical and biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species and that may require special management 
considerations or protection (50 CFR 424.14(b)). San Bernardino and 
Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuges, as well as the upper San Pedro 
River, provide important habitat for Lilaeopsis. However, as National 
Wildlife Refuges with mandates to conserve and protect rare species, 
special management and protection are already in place. Thus, no 
additional layer of protection is needed. However, as discussed herein 
and in the final listing rule (62 FR 665), Lilaeopsis and its habitat 
are threatened by groundwater overdraft on the upper San Pedro, which 
may require special management considerations or protection. As a 
result, critical habitat was designated on the upper San Pedro River 
but not at San Bernardino or Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuges.
    Issue 7: Critical habitat designation will direct collectors of 
rare plants and recreationists to these important habitats, resulting 
in increased collection of Lilaeopsis and habitat disturbance.
    Service Response: Designation of critical habitat is not prudent 
when 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 to the species (50 CFR 424.19). As discussed in 
the proposed rule, we are concerned that publishing maps of Lilaeopsis 
critical habitat could facilitate collection or other adverse effects. 
However, Lilaeopsis is a small, grass-like plant with inconspicuous 
flowers that is unlikely to be highly prized by plant collectors. 
Collection has not been identified as a threat.
    Publishing the localities could facilitate visits by botanists or 
recreationists to these sites, which could result in trampling of 
plants or banklines. However, we expect that these visits will be few 
in number and very little disturbance will result from such visits.
    Issue 8: All Lilaeopsis localities should have been designated as 
critical habitat, or the Service should provide a rationale for not 
designating sites. One commenter suggested that more critical habitat 
should be designated in Bear Canyon of Unit 6.
    Service Response: In determining what areas are critical habitat, 
we consider areas and constituent elements that are essential to the 
conservation of the species and that may require special protection or 
management considerations (50 CFR 424.19(b)). Thus, not all areas 
occupied or potentially occupied by a species are appropriate for 
designation. Our rationale for not designating all Lilaeopsis 
localities as critical habitat is discussed in the section of this rule 
entitled ``Critical Habitat Designation.''
    Issue 9: Designation of critical habitat should be delayed until 
better information becomes available on the species.
    Service Response: Critical habitat designation can be found to be 
not determinable if information is insufficient to perform the required 
analyses of the impacts of the designation, or the biological needs of 
the species are not known well enough to permit identification of an 
area as critical habitat. Although additional work on this species is 
needed, the biological needs of the species is far from unknown and an 
analysis of economic impacts was completed (McKenney et al. 1999). 
Surveys and ecological studies of Lilaeopsis (Affolter 1985, Falk 1998, 
Falk and Warren 1994, Gori et al. 1990, Haas and Frye 1997, Saucedo 
1990, Warren et al. 1989, Warren et al. 1991, Warren and Reichenbacher 
1991) provide sufficient

[[Page 37448]]

information upon which to base a critical habitat determination. 
Critical habitat may be revised if new information becomes available 
suggesting such revision is needed (50 CFR 424.12(g)).
    On November 25, 1998, Judge Marquez 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.''
    Issue 10: The maps are inadequate for landowners to determine what 
areas were proposed as critical habitat. The meaning of ``adjacent 
areas out to the beginning of the upland vegetation'' is unclear.
    Service Response: The maps are intended to be a general guide to 
where critical habitat is located. To determine exactly where critical 
habitat begins and ends along the designated canyons and stream 
reaches, readers should refer to the legal descriptions in the section 
entitled ``Critical Habitat--Plants.'' In regard to the precise 
location of critical habitat within canyons or stream reaches, we 
decided that an ecological description would be more appropriate than a 
strictly legal description. The floodplain vegetation community defines 
the area in which constituent elements will be found more precisely 
than legal descriptions. Lilaeopsis habitat and constituent elements 
are expected to change within those floodplains over time as the 
watercourse changes direction, creates new channels, etc. Movement 
within the floodplain is more likely to occur in a broad floodplain 
such as the San Pedro River, as compared to a narrow canyon, such as 
Rattlesnake Canyon in Unit 6. Although the habitat and constituent 
elements may move within a floodplain, they will always be within that 
floodplain and its associated zone of riparian and wetland vegetation, 
thus we defined the boundaries of critical habitat by vegetation 
communities. The boundary between riparian/wetland communities and 
adjacent uplands are typically quite clear in the arid woodlands and 
semi-desert grasslands in which Lilaeopsis habitat occurs and should be 
easy to identify on the ground.
    Issue 11: Further survey work is needed in Unit 6 to determine 
where critical habitat should be designated.
    Service Response: We reevaluated survey data and reports, 
particularly Gori et al. (1990), Haas and Frye (1997), and Warren et 
al. (1991); and in March, 1999, we made two field trips to the area to 
investigate the distribution of Lilaeopsis and assess habitat 
suitability. These field trips focused on Lone Mountain Canyon and its 
tributaries. Our review of existing literature and investigations in 
Lone Mountain Canyon confirmed that the stream reaches proposed as 
critical habitat met the regulatory criteria for critical habitat. 
Lilaeopsis was found by us and previous investigators in Lone Mountain 
Canyon and its two tributaries, but there are long stretches of these 
canyons that are typically dry, and the species was not located. The 
species may occur in these reaches during wet periods, but as discussed 
in our response to Issue 3, not only are these reaches likely ephemeral 
habitat during wet cycles, but they also affect downstream populations 
hydrologically, and are links that can allow for flow of individuals 
and genetic material among populations.
    Issue 12: There is no need to designate critical habitat on the 
fringe of Lilaeopsis' range, where few areas contain constituent 
elements.
    Service Response: The commenter states that the range of Lilaeopsis 
extends to central and northern Mexico and northwestern South America. 
This is the range of the entire species, but the listed entity, 
Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva, is only known from 26 sites in 
Santa Cruz, Cochise, and Pima counties, Arizona, and in adjacent 
Sonora, Mexico. These are not ``fringe'' localities; they represent the 
only places where this taxon is found.
    Issue 13: The Service failed to notify or request comments from the 
State of Arizona, Mexico, and South American countries where Lilaeopsis 
occurs, as required by the Act.
    Service Response: As discussed in our response to Issue 12, 
Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva does not occur in South America, 
therefore we did not solicit comments from South American countries. 
Pursuant to 50 CFR 424.16 (c)(1)(iv), we are required to give notice to 
foreign countries in which the species occurs only if the proposed 
regulation is to list, delist, or reclassify the species. Because this 
is not an action to list, delist, or reclassify a species, this action 
does not apply to Mexico, and we are not required to inform that 
government of this designation. Within Arizona State government, the 
proposed rule was sent to 28 contacts within numerous agencies, 
including the Governor's Office and the Arizona Department of 
Agriculture, which has jurisdiction over plant protection within State 
government. Of these 28, the Arizona Department of Environmental 
Quality and Arizona Game and Fish Department responded in writing to us 
indicating they had no comments on the proposed designation.
    Issue 14: The Service should focus on establishing Lilaeopsis in 
small sites where it can persist, such as creating a small diversion 
along the San Pedro River that could serve as a refugium for the 
species, rather than designating large areas that impinge on property 
and water rights and increase unnecessary regulation.
    Service Response: Creation of habitat is an action that could be 
employed to help recover and ultimately eliminate the need for 
Lilaeopsis' endangered status and the critical habitat designation. 
However, such decisions will be addressed in the species' recovery 
plan, which has yet to be developed.
    Because critical habitat designation would not affect any uses of 
private property, unless those uses were federally authorized, funded, 
or carried out, no infringement of property rights would result from 
critical habitat designation. The designation is also not expected to 
increase regulatory burden above and beyond that already imposed by 
listing, because projects that would adversely modify or destroy 
critical habitat would also result in jeopardy to the species.
    Issue 15: The following finding from the proposed rule is 
inconsistent with the Act and its implementing regulations: ``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.''
    Service Response: The implementing regulations require that 
analyses to determine critical habitat shall focus on the principal 
biological and physical constituent elements within defined areas that 
are essential to the conservation of the species (50 CFR 424.12(b)(5)). 
The species occurs in all of the critical habitat units, but in certain 
reaches within each unit it may at times be absent and some constituent 
elements may be missing. Nevertheless, these areas are important as 
habitat during wet cycles and/or are important corridors for movement 
of plants and genetic material among populations. Since stream courses 
are dynamic, as is the distribution of the plant, protection of sites 
that do not currently support the water umbel but could do so in the 
future are essential to the species' conservation.
    Issue 16: The assumption used in the analysis is incorrect, as 
designation of critical habitat will have economic

[[Page 37449]]

impacts on the City of Sierra Vista and Fort Huachuca.
    Service Response: The designation of critical habitat for the 
Huachuca water umbel has been evaluated in the economic context known 
as ``with'' and ``without'' the rule. It was found that the status of 
the Huachuca water umbel is such that any adverse modification of its 
habitat would be likely to jeopardize the species. Further, it is our 
position that both within and outside of critical habitat, Federal 
agencies should consult under the jeopardy standard if a proposed 
action is (1) within the geographic areas occupied by the species, 
whether or not the Huachuca water umbel has been detected on the 
specific project site; (2) the project site contains habitat features 
that can be used by the species; and (3) the proposed action is likely 
to adversely affect that habitat. Under this condition, any and all 
real economic consequences would be due to the jeopardy call under 
section 7 of the Act and an adverse modification without a jeopardy 
call would not occur. Therefore, the economic consequences identified 
during the comment period are all due to the listing of the water umbel 
and not additional consequences accrued from the designation of 
critical habitat. The economic analysis of designating critical habitat 
determined that the same regulatory process is in place ``with'' as 
well as ``without'' the rule, and consequently found no economic 
effects attributable to the designation of critical habitat.
    Issue 17: The designation will have harmful impacts on the quality 
of life, education, and economic stability of small towns. There is an 
expressed concern that the proposed critical habitat designation will 
change groundwater pumping from the San Pedro River and this will 
negatively affect the city of Sierra Vista and Fort Huachuca which 
provides jobs to local residents.
    Service Response: As stated in the economic analysis, the proposed 
rule to designate critical habitat for the Huachuca water umbel is not 
adding any new requirements to the regulatory process. Since the 
adverse modification standard for critical habitat and the jeopardy 
standard are almost identical, the listing of the Huachuca water umbel 
itself invoked the requirement for consultation. The rule to designate 
critical habitat adds no other requirements not already in place when 
the species was listed.
    Issue 18: The Service's designation of critical habitat has not 
adequately considered potential economic implications. There is 
opposition to the fact that the Service did not prepare an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis to address potential impact to small 
businesses, as required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    Service Response: The proposed rule was published under very tight 
time constraints placed by Court Order on December 24, 1998. At that 
time we prepared a Record of Compliance certification that the proposed 
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic 
impact on small entities. A detailed analysis was initiated by a 
private firm under Government contract and subsequently, we distributed 
a draft of the economic report for a 30-day public comment period 
ending in May, 1999. The findings of the economic reports indicate that 
the designation of critical habitat adds no new restrictions on 
economic activity that were not in place with the listing of 
Lilaeopsis. Therefore, there is no economic effect on small entities 
attributable to this rulemaking, and a regulatory impact analysis is 
not required.

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.
    Economic effects caused by listing Lilaeopsis as endangered and by 
other statutes are the baseline upon which critical habitat is imposed. 
The economic analysis must then examine the incremental economic and 
conservation effects of the critical habitat addition. Economic effects 
are measured as changes in national income, regional jobs, and 
household income.
    An analysis of the economic effects of Lilaeopsis critical habitat 
designation was prepared (McKenney et al. 1999) and made available for 
public review. The final analysis, which reviewed and incorporated 
public comments, concluded that no economic impacts are expected from 
critical habitat designation above and beyond that already imposed by 
listing Lilaeopsis. The only possible economic effects of critical 
habitat designation are on activities funded, authorized, or carried 
out by a Federal agency. These activities would be subject to section 7 
consultation if they may affect critical habitat. However, activities 
that may affect critical habitat may also affect the species, and would 
thus be subject to consultation regardless of critical habitat 
designation. Also, changes or mitigating measures that might increase 
the cost of the project would only be imposed as a result of critical 
habitat if the project adversely modifies or destroys that critical 
habitat. We believe that any project that would adversely modify or 
destroy critical habitat would also jeopardize the continued existence 
of the species; thus no regulatory burden or additional costs would 
accrue because of critical habitat above and beyond those resulting 
from listing. Furthermore, we believe any reasonable and prudent 
alternative that would remove jeopardy to the species would also remove 
adverse modification of critical habitat.
    A copy of the economic analysis and description of the exclusion 
process with supporting documents are included in our administrative 
record and may be obtained by contacting our office (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Required Determinations

    Regulatory Planning and Review. In accordance with Executive Order 
12866, this action was submitted for review by the Office of Management 
and Budget. Because the economic analysis identified no economic 
benefits from excluding any of the proposed critical habitat areas, we 
made a determination to designate all proposed critical habitat units, 
with the exception of Unit 7, Joaquin Canyon, which is excluded because 
its designation is not essential to the conservation of the species and 
is not in need of special management or protection. No inconsistencies 
with other agencies' actions and or effects on entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients, were identified in the economic analysis. This rule does 
not raise novel legal or policy issues.

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

    In the economic analysis we determined that designation of critical 
habitat will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of 
small entities. As discussed in that document and in this final rule, 
designating critical habitat will not place restrictions on any actions 
beyond those already resulting from listing Lilaeopsis as endangered. 
We recognize that some towns, counties, and private entities are 
considered small entities in accordance

[[Page 37450]]

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, however, they also are not 
affected by the designation of critical habitat because no additional 
restrictions will result from this action.

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

    In the economic analysis, we determined that designation of 
critical habitat will not 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.

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

    In the economic analysis, we determined that no effects would occur 
to small governments as a result of critical habitat designation.
    Takings. In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does 
not have significant takings implications, and a takings implication 
assessment is not required. This rule 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. Although the majority of lands designated as critical 
habitat is under Federal administration and management, some riparian 
systems on private land are being designated.

Federalism

    This rule 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, and in the 
economic analysis we determined that no economic impacts would result 
from of critical habitat designation.

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. We have made every effort to 
ensure that this final determination contains no drafting errors, 
provides clear standards, simplifies procedures, reduces burden, and is 
clearly written such that litigation risk is minimized.

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.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    We have determined that regulations adopted pursuant to section 4 
of the Act need not undergo preparation of Environmental Assessments or 
Environmental Impact Statements as defined under the authority of the 
NEPA. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this 
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

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.'' Lilaeopsis critical habitat 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 final rule is 
available upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Authors

    The primary author of this notice is Jim Rorabaugh (see ADDRESSES 
section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

    For the reasons given in the preamble, we 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 
var. recurva'' under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' to read as follows:


Sec. 17.12   Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

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

    3. In section 17.96 add critical habitat for Lilaeopsis 
schaffneriana var. recurva, Huachuca water umbel, as the first entry 
under ``(a) Flowering plants'' to read as follows:

[[Page 37451]]

Sec. 17.96  Critical habitat--plants.

    (a) Flowering plants.

    Family Apiaceae: Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva (Huachuca 
water umbel). Critical habitat includes the stream courses 
identified in the legal descriptions below, and includes adjacent 
areas out to the beginning of upland vegetation. 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 or nearly permanently wetted 
substrate for growth and reproduction of Lilaeopsis; (2) A stream 
channel that is relatively stable, but 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 relatively 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) In streams and rivers, refugial sites in 
each watershed and in each reach, including but not limited to 
springs or backwaters of mainstem rivers, that allow each population 
to survive catastrophic floods and recolonize larger areas.
    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.).
    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.).
    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.).
    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.).
    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.).
    Unit 6. Cochise County, Arizona. From USGS 7.5' quadrangle map 
Miller Peak, Arizona.
    Gila and Salt Principal Meridian, Arizona: That portion of Bear 
Canyon beginning at a point in T. 24 S., R. 19 E., sec. 1 at approx. 
31 deg.22'30'' N latitude and 110 deg.21'47'' W longitude upstream 
through T. 23 S., R. 19 E., sec. 36 to a point in sec. 31 at approx. 
31 deg.23'18'' N latitude and 110 deg.21'22'' W longitude covering 
approx. 1.7 km (1.0 mi.). Also, continuing up an unnamed tributary 
beginning at a point in T. 23 S., R. 19 E., sec. 31 at approx. 
31 deg.23'18'' N latitude and 110 deg.21'22'' W longitude upstream 
(northerly) to a point in T. 23 S., R. 19 E., sec. 30 at approx. 
31 deg.23'44'' N latitude and 110 deg.21'14'' W longitude covering 
approx. 0.9 km (0.5 mi.). Also, that portion of Lone Mountain Canyon 
beginning at its confluence with Bear Creek at a point in T. 23 S., 
R. 19 E., sec. 36 at approx. 31 deg.22'54'' N latitude and 
110 deg.21'43'' W longitude to a point in sec. 36 at approx. 
31 deg.23'26'' N latitude and 110 deg.21'58'' W longitude, thence up 
an unnamed tributary northwesterly into sec. 25 thence northerly to 
a point at approx. 31 deg.24'13'' N latitude and 110 deg.21'54'' W 
longitude covering approx. 2.7 km (1.7 mi.). Also that portion of 
Rattlesnake Canyon beginning at its confluence with Lone Mountain 
Canyon in T. 23 S., R. 19 E., sec. 36 upstream northeasterly into 
sec. 25 to a point at approx. 31 deg.22'08'' N latitude and 
110 deg.21'31'' W longitude covering approx. 1.5 km (1.0 mi.).
    Unit 7. 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 for Units 1-7 follow:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 37452]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY99.030



[[Page 37453]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY99.031


    Dated: June 30, 1999.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-17403 Filed 7-6-99; 1:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C