Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposal To Determine Endangered Status for Three Wetland Species Found in Southern Arizona and Northern Sonora

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AD11

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposal To

Determine Endangered Status for Three Wetland Species Found in Southern

Arizona and Northern Sonora

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of petition findings.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes

endangered status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973,

as amended, for two plants, Spiranthes delitescens (Canelo Hills

ladies'-tresses) and Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva (Huachuca

water umbel), and one amphibian, the Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma

tigrinum stebbinsi). These species occur in a limited number of wetland

habitats in southern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. They are

threatened by one or more of the following--collecting, disease,

predation, competition with nonnative species, catastrophic floods,

drought, and degradation and destruction of habitat

resulting from livestock overgrazing, water diversions, dredging, and

groundwater pumping. All three taxa are also threatened with stochastic

extirpations or extinction due to small numbers of populations or

individuals. This proposed rule, if made final, would extend the Act's

protection to these three taxa.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by June 2,

1995. Public hearing requests must be received by May 18, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials should be sent to the Arizona

Ecological Services State Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3616

West Thomas Road, Suite 6, Phoenix, Arizona 85019. Comments and

materials received will be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Rorabaugh at the above address (telephone 602/640-2720: facsimile

602/379-6629).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

e Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3616

West Thomas Road, Suite 6, Phoenix, Arizona 85019. Comments and

materials received will be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Rorabaugh at the above address (telephone 602/640-2720: facsimile

602/379-6629).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Cienegas are mid-elevation wetland communities often surrounded by

relatively arid environments. They are typically associated with

permanent perennial springs and stream headwaters, have permanently or

seasonally saturated highly organic soils, and have a low probability

of flooding or scouring (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). Cienegas

support diverse assemblages of animals and plants, including many

species of limited distribution, such as the three taxa in this

proposed rule (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Lowe 1985, Minckley and

Brown 1982, Ohmart and Anderson 1982). Although Spiranthes delitescens

(Spiranthes), Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva (Lilaeopsis), and

Sonora tiger salamander typically occupy different microhabitats, they

all occur in cienegas: Lilaeopsis also occurs along streams and rivers.

Cienegas and 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 Arizona land area,

with present riparian areas being remnants of what once existed. The

State of Arizona (1990) estimates that up to 90 percent of the riparian

habitat along Arizona's major desert watercourses has been lost,

degraded, or altered in historic times. Spiranthes, Lilaeopsis, and the

Sonora tiger salamander occupy small portions of these rare habitats.

Spiranthes delitescens (Canelo Hills ladies'-tresses)

resent riparian areas being remnants of what once existed. The

State of Arizona (1990) estimates that up to 90 percent of the riparian

habitat along Arizona's major desert watercourses has been lost,

degraded, or altered in historic times. Spiranthes, Lilaeopsis, and the

Sonora tiger salamander occupy small portions of these rare habitats.

Spiranthes delitescens (Canelo Hills ladies'-tresses). Spiranthes

delitescens is a slender, erect, terrestrial orchid that when in bloom

reaches approximately 50 centimeters (cm) 20 inches (in)) tall. Five to

ten, linear-lanceolate, grass-like leaves, 18 cm (7.1 in) long and 1.5

cm (0.6 in) wide, grow basally on the stem. The fleshy swollen roots

are approximately 5 millimeters (mm) (0.2 in) in diameter. The top of

the flower stalk contains up to 40 small white flowers arranged in a

spiral. The species is presumed to be perennial, but mature plants

rarely flower in consecutive years and in some years have no visible

aboveground structures (McClaren and Sundt 1992, Newman 1991).

P.S. Martin first collected Spiranthes delitescens in 1968 at a

site in Santa Cruz County, Arizona (Sheviak 1990). This specimen was

first identified as Spiranthes graminea, a related Mexican species.

Sheviak (1990) found that the Spiranthes in Arizona, previously thought

to be S. graminea, displayed a distinct set of morphological and

cytological characteristics and named them S. delitescens.

This species is known from four cienegas at about 1,525 meters (m)

(5,000 feet (ft)) elevation in the San Pedro River watershed in Santa

Cruz and Cochise Counties, southern Arizona (Newman 1991). The total

amount of occupied habitat is less than 81 hectares (ha) (200 acres

(ac)). All populations are on private land less than 37 kilometers (km)

(23 miles (mi)) north of the U.S./Mexico border.

Potential habitat in Sonora, Mexico, has been surveyed, but no

Spiranthes populations have been found.

The dominant vegetation associated with Spiranthes includes

grasses. Carex spp

ewman 1991). The total

amount of occupied habitat is less than 81 hectares (ha) (200 acres

(ac)). All populations are on private land less than 37 kilometers (km)

(23 miles (mi)) north of the U.S./Mexico border.

Potential habitat in Sonora, Mexico, has been surveyed, but no

Spiranthes populations have been found.

The dominant vegetation associated with Spiranthes includes

grasses. Carex spp. (sedges), Juncus spp. (rushes), Eleocharis spp.

(spike rushes), Typha spp. (cattails), and Equisetum spp. (horsetails)

(Cross 1991, Warren et al. 1991). The surrounding vegetation is

semidesert grassland or oak savannah.

All Spiranthes populations occur where scouring floods are very

unlikely (Newman 1991). Soils supporting the populations are finely

grained, highly organic, and seasonally or perennially saturated.

Springs are the primary water source, but a creek near one population

contributes near-surface groundwater (McClaran and Sundt 1992).

Some Spiranthes life history information has been gained from

studies at one site. As with most terrestrial orchids, successful

seedling establishment probably depends on the formation of

endomycorhizae (a symbiotic association between plant root tissue and

fungi) (McClaran and Sundt 1992). The time needed for subterranean

structures to produce aboveground growth is unknown. Plants may remain

dormant in a subterranean state or remain vegetative (nonflowering) for

more than one consecutive year. Plants that flower one year can be

dormant, vegetative, or reproductive the next (McClaran and Sundt 1992,

Newman 1991). The saprophytic/autotrophic state of orchid plants may be

determined by climatic fluctuations and edaphic factors such as pH

level, temperature and soil moisture (Sheviak 1990).

Estimating Spiranthes population size and stability is difficult

because nonflowering plants are very hard to find in the dense

vegetation, and yearly counts underestimate the population because

dormant plants are not counted

phytic/autotrophic state of orchid plants may be

determined by climatic fluctuations and edaphic factors such as pH

level, temperature and soil moisture (Sheviak 1990).

Estimating Spiranthes population size and stability is difficult

because nonflowering plants are very hard to find in the dense

vegetation, and yearly counts underestimate the population because

dormant plants are not counted. McClaran and Sundt (1992) monitored

marked individuals in a Spiranthes population during two three-year

periods. They concluded that the subpopulations at both monitored sites

were stable between 1987 and 1989, although Newman (1991) later

reported that one monitored site was reduced to one nonflowering plant

in 1991. Due to the propensity of Spiranthes plants to enter and remain

in a vegetative state and the lack of new flowering plants at one

monitoring site. McClaran and Sundt (1992) also speculated that

population numbers may be declining. Problems of experimental design

acknowledged by the authors confounded McClaran and Sundt's (1992)

conclusions about population stability; the Service believes additional

long-term studies are needed to more accurately determine the stability

of Spiranthes populations.

The fire ecology of this Spiranthes is unknown, but should be

determined. Experts disagree about the role of fire in cienegas. Some

believe upland lightning-caused fires spread into cienegas and burn at

cool temperatures while others believe the wet, marsh-like habitats

will not support fires. Determining the best method of managing healthy

cienegas will depend, in part, on resolving this controversy. Studies

at one site have been inconclusive about the effect of fires on

Spiranthes (Gori and Fishbein 1991, Fishbein and Gori 1992).

Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva (Huachuca water umbel).

Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva is an herbaceous, semi-aquatic,

perennial plant with slender, erect leaves that grow from creeping

rhizomes

will depend, in part, on resolving this controversy. Studies

at one site have been inconclusive about the effect of fires on

Spiranthes (Gori and Fishbein 1991, Fishbein and Gori 1992).

Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva (Huachuca water umbel).

Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva is an herbaceous, semi-aquatic,

perennial plant with slender, erect leaves that grow from creeping

rhizomes. The leaves are cylindrical, hollow, and have septa (thin

partitions) at regular intervals. The yellow-green or bright

green leaves are generally 1-3 mm (0.04-0.12 in) in

diameter and often 3-5 cm tall (1-2 in), but can reach up to 20 cm (8

in) tall under favorable conditions. Three to ten very small flowers

are born 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 and

from rhizomes asexually, the latter probably being the primary

reproductive mode.

Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. 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.

Lilaeopsis has been documented from 21 sites in Santa Cruz and

Cochise 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). Six of the 21 sites have been

extirpated. The 15 extant sites occur in four major watersheds--San

Pedro River, Santa Cruz River, Rio Yaqui, and Rio Sonora. All sites are

between 1,148 and 2,133 m (3,500 and 6,500 ft) elevation

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). Six of the 21 sites have been

extirpated. The 15 extant sites occur in four major watersheds--San

Pedro River, Santa Cruz River, Rio Yaqui, and Rio Sonora. All sites are

between 1,148 and 2,133 m (3,500 and 6,500 ft) elevation.

Eight 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 (BLM)-Safford District. Two

extirpated populations in the upper San Pedro watershed in Arizona

occurred at Zinn Pond in St. David and the San Pedro River near St.

David. Cienega-like habitats suitable for Lilaeopsis 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.

The four Lilaeopsis populations in the Santa Cruz River watershed

probably represent very small remnants of larger populations that may

have occurred in the extensive riparian and aquatic habitat formerly

along the river. Before 1890, the spatially intermittent, perennial

flows on the middle Santa Cruz River most likely provided a

considerable amount of habitat for Lilaeopsis and other aquatic plants.

The middle section of the Santa Cruz River mainstem, about a 130-km

(80-mi) reach, flowed perennially from the U.S./Mexico border north to

the Tubac area then intermittently from Tubac north to the Tucson area

(Davis 1986). In 1859, a traveler described the Santa Cruz River in the

Tucson area as a ``* * * rapid brook * * * clear as crystal, and full

of aquatic plants, fish and tortoises of various kinds * * *'' (in

Humphrey 1958). This habitat and species assemblage no longer occurs in

the Tucson area

.S./Mexico border north to

the Tubac area then intermittently from Tubac north to the Tucson area

(Davis 1986). In 1859, a traveler described the Santa Cruz River in the

Tucson area as a ``* * * rapid brook * * * clear as crystal, and full

of aquatic plants, fish and tortoises of various kinds * * *'' (in

Humphrey 1958). This habitat and species assemblage no longer occurs in

the Tucson area. A population at Monkey Spring in the upper watershed

of the middle Santa Cruz River has been extirpated, although suitable

habitat still exists (Warren et al. 1991).

Two Lilaeopsis populations occur in the Rio Yaqui watershed. The

species was recently discovered at Presa Cuquiarichi, in the Sierra de

los Ajos, several miles east of Cananea, Sonora (Deecken, pers. comm.

1994). The species remains in small areas (generally less than 1 square

meter (m2)) 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 Lilaeopsis population. A population in the Rio San

Bernardino in Sonora was also recently extirpated (Gori et al. 1990).

One Lilaeopsis population occurs in the Rio Sonora watershed at Ojo de

Agua, a cienega in Sonora at the headwaters of the river (Saucedo

1990).

Lilaeopsis has an opportunistic strategy that ensures its survival

in healthy riverine systems, cienegas, and springs. In upper watersheds

that generally do not have scouring floods, Lilaeopsisoccurs in

microsites where interspecific plant competition is low. At these

sites, Lilaeopsis occurs on wetted soils interspersed with other plants

at low density, along the periphery of the wetted channel, or in small

openings in the understory. The upper Santa Cruz River and associated

springs in the San Rafael Valley, where a population of Lilaeopsis

occurs, is an example of a site that meets these conditions

where interspecific plant competition is low. At these

sites, Lilaeopsis occurs on wetted soils interspersed with other plants

at low density, along the periphery of the wetted channel, or in small

openings in the understory. The upper Santa Cruz River and associated

springs in the San Rafael Valley, where a population of Lilaeopsis

occurs, is an example of a site that meets these conditions. the types

of microsites required by Lilaeopsis were generally lost from the main

stems of the San Pedro and Santa Cruz rivers when channel entrenchment

occurred in the late 1800s.

In stream and river main channels, Lilaeopsis can occur in

backwaters, side channels, and nearby springs. After a flood,

Lilaeopsis can rapidly expand its population and occupy disturbed

habitat until interspecific competition exceeds its tolerance. This

response was observed 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 codominant 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 with an

unaltered hydrograph, and a healthy riparian community that stabilizes

the channel.

Density of Lilaeopsis plants and size of populations fluctuates 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 trees and deeply

entrenched channel. The Sonoita Creek population occupies 14.5 percent

of a 500.5 m\2\ (5.385 ft\2\) patch of habitat (Gori et al. 1990). Some

populations are as small as 1-2 m\2\ (11-22 ft\2\). The Scotia Canyon

population, by contrast, has dense mats of leaves

h as Black Draw, have a few sparsely distributed clones, possibly

due to the dense shade of the even-aged overstory trees and deeply

entrenched channel. The Sonoita Creek population occupies 14.5 percent

of a 500.5 m\2\ (5.385 ft\2\) patch of habitat (Gori et al. 1990). Some

populations are as small as 1-2 m\2\ (11-22 ft\2\). The Scotia Canyon

population, by contrast, has dense mats of leaves. Scotia Canyon

contains the largest Lilaeopsis population, occupying about 57 percent

of the 1.450 m (4,756 ft) perennial stream reach (Gori et al. 1990, J.

Abbott, Forest Supervisor, Coronado National Forest, in litt. 1994).

The Coronado National Forest plans to continue monitoring the

populations in Scotia and Bear canyons.

While the extent of occupied habitat can be estimated, it is

impossible to determine the number of individuals in each population

because of the intermeshing creeping rhizomes. 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 have been 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 (K. Cobble, San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, pers.

comm. 1994, and P. Warren, pers. comm. 1993) that other species such as

Typha sp. (cattails) will outcompete Lilaeopsis.

Other reintroductions are being considered. The Service has funded

a project to reintroduce Lilaeopsis on the Santa Cruz River and

tributaries, and the BLM (1993) plans to re-establish it along the San

Pedro River.

Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi)

s.

comm. 1994, and P. Warren, pers. comm. 1993) that other species such as

Typha sp. (cattails) will outcompete Lilaeopsis.

Other reintroductions are being considered. The Service has funded

a project to reintroduce Lilaeopsis on the Santa Cruz River and

tributaries, and the BLM (1993) plans to re-establish it along the San

Pedro River.

Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi). The Sonora

tiger salamander is a large salamander with light-

colored blotches or reticulation on a dark background. Snout-vent

lengths of metamorphosed individuals range from approximately 6.7-12.5

cm (2.6-4.9 in) (Jones et al. 1988. Lowe 1954). Larval salamanders are

aquatic with plume-like gills and well developed tail fins (Behler and

King 1980). Larvae hatched in the spring are large enough to

metamorphose into terrestrial salamanders from late July to early

September, but only an estimated 17-40 percent metamorphose annually.

Remaining larvae mature into branchiates (aquatic and larval-like, but

sexually mature salamanders that remain in the breeding pond) or

overwinter as larvae (Collins and Jones 1987); James Collins, Arizona

State University, pers. comm. 1993).

The Sonora tiger salamander was discovered in 1949 at the J.F.

Jones Ranch stock tank in Parker Canyon, San Rafael Valley, Arizona

(Reed 1951). Based on color patterns of metamorphosed animals, Lowe

(1954) described the Sonora tiger salamander from southern Santa Cruz

County, Arizona, as the subspecies stebbinsi of the broad-ranging tiger

salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum). However, again based on color

patterns, Gehlbach (1965, 1967) synonomized A. t. stebbinsi and A. t.

utahense (from the Rocky Mountains region) with A. t. nebulosum (from

northern Arizona and New Mexico). Nevertheless, A. t. stebbinsi

continued to be recognized in the scientific literature (Jones et al.

1988).

Jones et al. (1988) found Lowe's description of color patterns in

A. t

tigrinum). However, again based on color

patterns, Gehlbach (1965, 1967) synonomized A. t. stebbinsi and A. t.

utahense (from the Rocky Mountains region) with A. t. nebulosum (from

northern Arizona and New Mexico). Nevertheless, A. t. stebbinsi

continued to be recognized in the scientific literature (Jones et al.

1988).

Jones et al. (1988) found Lowe's description of color patterns in

A. t. stebbinsi was only accurate for recently metamorphosed

individuals and that older metamorphosed adults exhibited either a

distinctive reticulate pattern or large light-colored blotches on a

dark background similar to A. t. mavortium, found in the central United

States and adjacent portions of Mexico. Starch gel electrophoresis of

21 presumptive gene loci of A. t. stebbinsi were compared with gene

loci of A. rosaceum (from Sonora). A. t. mavortium, and A. t. nebulosum

(Jones et al. 1988). Based on this analysis, distinctive reticulate

color patterns, low heterozygosity, and apparent geographic isolation,

subspecific designation of A. t. stebbinsi was considered warranted by

Collins and Jones (1987) and Jones et al. (1988). Further analysis of

mitochondrial DNA reaffirmed subspecific designation and suggested that

A. t. stebbinsi may have been derived from hybridization between A. t.

nebulosum and A. t. mavortium (Collins et al. 1988).

The grassland community of the San Rafael Valley and surrounding

hillsides, where all extant populations of A. t. stebbinsi occur, may

represent a relictual grassland and a refugium for tiger salamander

populations that became isolated and, over time, genetically distinct.

Based on color patterns and electrophoretic analysis, Ambystoma

collected in Mexico at one site in Sonora and 17 sites in Chihuahua

were all A. rosaceum, not A. t. stebbinsi (Jones et al. 1988).

Reanalysis of reported A. t. stebbinsi collected in Sonora (Hansen and

Tremper 1979) and at Yepomera, Chihuahua (Van Devender 1973) revealed

that these specimens were actually A. rosaceum (Jones et al

Based on color patterns and electrophoretic analysis, Ambystoma

collected in Mexico at one site in Sonora and 17 sites in Chihuahua

were all A. rosaceum, not A. t. stebbinsi (Jones et al. 1988).

Reanalysis of reported A. t. stebbinsi collected in Sonora (Hansen and

Tremper 1979) and at Yepomera, Chihuahua (Van Devender 1973) revealed

that these specimens were actually A. rosaceum (Jones et al. 1988).

Collins et al. (1988) list 18 recorded sites for the Sonora tiger

salamander. All of these sites are in the headwaters of the Santa Cruz

River, including sites in the San Rafael Valley and adjacent foothills

of the Patagonia and Huachuca Mountains and the Canelo Hills, in Santa

Cruz and Cochise Counties, Arizona. The taxon is currently extant at 15

of these sites, where populations of mature branchiates range from

approximately 50 to several hundred (Collins and Jones 1987).

Populations of Sonora tiger salamanders also have been discovered

recently in Scotia Canyon on the western slopes of the Huachuca

Mountains (Jeff Howland, Arizona Game and Fish Department, pers. comm.

1993) and in Copper Canyon of the Huachuca Mountains (Russell Duncan,

Southwestern Field Biologists, pers. comm. 1993). Salamanders

tentatively identified as Sonora tiger salamander also have been found

recently at Portrero del Alamo at the Los Fresnos cienega in the

headwaters of the San Pedro River, San Rafael Valley, Sonora, Mexico

(Sally Stefferud, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1993). In

addition, a single terrestrial Sonora tiger salamander was found near

Oak Spring in Copper Canyon of the Huachuca Mountains (J. Howland,

pers. comm. 1993). This individual probably moved from the newly

discovered aquatic population located approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) to

the southwest. All historic and extant sites occur within 31 km (19 mi)

of Lochiel, Arizona. The Los Fresnos and Oak Spring sites are springs

or cienegas; all other sites are livestock tanks or impounded cienegas

er Canyon of the Huachuca Mountains (J. Howland,

pers. comm. 1993). This individual probably moved from the newly

discovered aquatic population located approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) to

the southwest. All historic and extant sites occur within 31 km (19 mi)

of Lochiel, Arizona. The Los Fresnos and Oak Spring sites are springs

or cienegas; all other sites are livestock tanks or impounded cienegas.

Historically, the Sonora tiger salamander probably inhabited springs

and cienegas where permanent or nearly permanent water allowed survival

of mature branchiates.

Other potential localities have been surveyed in or near the San

Rafael Valley, but no other Sonora tiger salamander populations have

been found. A. rosaceum and A. t. velasci occur at localities in Sonora

and Chihuahua to the south and east of the extant range of the Sonora

tiger salamander (Collins 1979, Collins and Jones 1987, Van Devender

and Lowe 1977). A. t. mavortium occurs at scattered localities to the

east in the San Pedro, Sulphur Springs, and San Simon Valleys (Collins

and Jones 1987), but at least some of these populations were introduced

by anglers and bait collectors (Collins 1981, Lowe 1954, Nickerson and

Mays 1969).

A variety of human activities threaten the Sonora tiger salamander.

The species has been recently extirpated from at least three of the 18

localities described by Collins et al. (1988). Disease and predation by

introduced nonnative fish and bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) have been

implicated in the extirpation of these populations (Collins and Jones

1987). Tiger salamanders are also widely used as fishing bait in

Arizona, and this use poses additional threats. Other subspecies of

tiger salamander introduced into habitats of the Sonora tiger

salamander for bait propagation could, through interbreeding,

genetically swamp the distinct A. t. stebbinsi populations (Collins and

Jones 1987). Collecting Sonora tiger salamanders for bait could also

extirpate or greatly reduce populations

ed as fishing bait in

Arizona, and this use poses additional threats. Other subspecies of

tiger salamander introduced into habitats of the Sonora tiger

salamander for bait propagation could, through interbreeding,

genetically swamp the distinct A. t. stebbinsi populations (Collins and

Jones 1987). Collecting Sonora tiger salamanders for bait could also

extirpate or greatly reduce populations. Additional threats include

habitat destruction, reduced fitness resulting from low genetic

heterozygosity, and the increased probability of stochastic extirpation

characteristic of small populations.

Previous Federal Action

Federal government actions on Spiranthes delitescens, Lilaeopsis

schaffneriana ssp. recurva, and Sonora tiger salamander began with

their inclusion in various Service notices of taxa under review for

listing as endangered or threatened species. Sonora tiger salamander

was included as a category 2 candidate in the first notice of review of

vertebrate wildlife (December 30, 1982; 47 FR 58454), and in subsequent

notices published September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958), and January 6, 1989

(54 FR 554). Category 2 candidates are those for which the Service has

some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there is insufficient

scientific and commercial information to support a proposed rule to

list them as threatened or endangered. The most recent animal notice,

published November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982), included the Sonora tiger

salamander in category 1. Category 1 includes those taxa for which the

Service has sufficient information to support proposed

rules to list the species as threatened or endangered.

Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva, then under the name L.

recurva, was included as a category 2 candidate in the November 28,

1983 (45 FR 82480) and September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526) plant notices.

It was included under its present name as a category 1 candidate in the

February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), and September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144),

notices

st the species as threatened or endangered.

Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva, then under the name L.

recurva, was included as a category 2 candidate in the November 28,

1983 (45 FR 82480) and September 27, 1985 (50 FR 39526) plant notices.

It was included under its present name as a category 1 candidate in the

February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6184), and September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51144),

notices.

Spiranthes delitescens was included for the first time in the

September 30, 1993, plant notice. It was included in that notice as a

category 1 candidate.

On June 3, 1993, the Department of the Interior, Washington, DC,

received three petitions, dated May 31, 1993, from a coalition of

conservation organizations (Suckling et al. 1993). The petitioners

requested the listing of Spiranthes, Lilaeopsis, and Sonora tiger

salamander as endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On December 14, 1993, the

Service published a notice of three 90-day findings that the petitions

presented substantial information indicating that listing these three

species may be warranted, and requested public comments and biological

data on the status of the species (58 FR 65325).

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to reach a

final decision on any petition accepted for review within 12 months of

its receipt. Publication of this proposed rule constitutes the

warranted findings for the petitioned actions.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

be warranted, and requested public comments and biological

data on the status of the species (58 FR 65325).

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to reach a

final decision on any petition accepted for review within 12 months of

its receipt. Publication of this proposed rule constitutes the

warranted findings for the petitioned actions.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act and regulations (50 CFR

part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act

set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A

species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due

to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These

factors and their application to Spiranthes delitescens Sheviak (Canelo

Hills ladies'-tresses), Lilaeopis schaffneriana spp. recurva (A.W.

Hill) Affolter (Huachuca water umbel), and the Sonora tiger salamander

(Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi Lowe) are as follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. Humans have affected southwestern

riparian systems over a period of several thousand years. From

prehistoric or historic times, human settlement in southern Arizona has

centered on oasis-like cienegas, streams, and rivers. Before the early

1800s, indigenous peoples and missionaries used southern Arizona

cienegas and riparian areas mostly for subsistence enterprises,

including wood cutting, agriculture (including livestock grazing), and

food and fiber harvesting. In the early 1800s, fur trappers nearly

eliminated beaver from southern Arizona streams and rivers (Davis 1986)

significantly changing stream morphology. In addition, human-caused

fires and trails may have significantly altered riparian systems (Bahre

1991, Dobyns 1981).

There was a significant human population increase in southern

Arizona and northern Sonora in the early to middle 1800s

ng. In the early 1800s, fur trappers nearly

eliminated beaver from southern Arizona streams and rivers (Davis 1986)

significantly changing stream morphology. In addition, human-caused

fires and trails may have significantly altered riparian systems (Bahre

1991, Dobyns 1981).

There was a significant human population increase in southern

Arizona and northern Sonora in the early to middle 1800s. New

immigrants substantially increased subsistence and commercial livestock

production and agriculture. By the late 1800s, many southern Arizona

watersheds were in poor condition primarily due to uncontrolled

livestock grazing, mining, hay harvesting, timber harvesting, and other

management practices, such as fire suppression (Bahre 1991, Humphrey

1958, Martin 1975). The watershed degradation caused by these

management practices led to widespread erosion and channel entrenchment

when above average rainfall and flooding occurred in the late 1800s

(Bahre 1991, Bryan 1925, Dobyns 1981, Hastings and Turner 1980,

Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Martin 1975, Sheridan 1986, Webb and

Betancourt 1992). These events contributed to long-term cienega and

riparian habitat degradation throughout southern Arizona and northern

Mexico. Physical evidence of cienega and other riparian area changes

can be found in the black organic soils of the drainage cut banks in

the San Rafael Valley (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984), San Pedro River

(Hereford 1992), Black Draw, and elsewhere. Although these changes took

place nearly a century ago, the ecosystem has not fully recovered and,

in some areas, may never recover.

Wetland habitat degradation and loss continues today. Human

activities such as groundwater overdrafts, surface water diversions,

impoundments, channelization, improper livestock grazing, chaining,

agriculture, mining, road building, nonnative species introductions,

urbanization, wood cutting, and recreation all contribute to riparian

and cienega habitat loss and degradation in southern Arizona

etland habitat degradation and loss continues today. Human

activities such as groundwater overdrafts, surface water diversions,

impoundments, channelization, improper livestock grazing, chaining,

agriculture, mining, road building, nonnative species introductions,

urbanization, wood cutting, and recreation all contribute to riparian

and cienega habitat loss and degradation in southern Arizona. The local

and regional effects of these activities are expected to increase with

increasing human population. Each threat is discussed in more detail

below.

Growing water demand threatens the existence of southern Arizona

perennial surface water and the species that depend on it. The North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will likely stimulate borderland

development, with a concurrent water demand increase that could

accelerate riparian area destruction and modification and increase

threats to plants and animals dependent on surface water, including the

species in this proposal.

The largest area currently available for recovery of Lilaeopsis is

the San Pedro River along the perennial reach between Hereford and

Fairbank. Whether or not the species can be recovered there depends

largely on the future presence of perennial surface flows in the river

and a natural unregulated hydrograph. Perennial flow in the San Pedro

River between Hereford and Fairbank comes from a deep regional aquifer

and a shallower floodplain (alluvial) aquifer (Arizona Department of

Water Resources 1991, Arizona Department of Water Resources 1994,

Jackson et al. 1987, Vionnet and Maddock 1992). Groundwater pumping

from both the regional and floodplain aquifers has occurred for some

time and threatens the base flow in the river (Jackson et al. 1987,

University of Arizona San Pedro Interdisciplinary Team 1991)

shallower floodplain (alluvial) aquifer (Arizona Department of

Water Resources 1991, Arizona Department of Water Resources 1994,

Jackson et al. 1987, Vionnet and Maddock 1992). Groundwater pumping

from both the regional and floodplain aquifers has occurred for some

time and threatens the base flow in the river (Jackson et al. 1987,

University of Arizona San Pedro Interdisciplinary Team 1991). Pumping

from wells used primarily for agriculture, particularly in the

Palominas and Hereford area, is having the largest current effect on

the floodplain aquifer (Arizona Department of Water Resources 1994,

Jackson et al. 1987). A significant effect to the regional aquifer

results from groundwater pumping from deeper wells that are the main

sources of municipal, military, and industrial water for Sierra Vista,

Fort Huachuca Military Reservation, and Huachuca City (Jackson et al.

1987, Arizona Department of Water Resources 1991 and 1994, Vionnet and

Maddock 1992). Groundwater pumping from this deep regional aquifer has

formed a cone of depression in the Sierra Vista/Fort Huachuca area

intercepting mountain front flows that would have contributed to

aquifer recharge (Arizona Department of Water Resources 1994, Jackson

et al. 1987).

Groundwater pumping is expected to increase with human population

growth. In anticipation of population growth, Fort Huachuca Military

Reservation has filed a claim for 10,087 acre-feet (A-F) per year of

tributary groundwater, more than three times the estimated 3,000 A-F

currently used (Arizona Department of Water Resources 1991). Even if

water conservation measures are employed, groundwater drafts and the

capture of mountain front recharge are likely to adversely affect flows

in the San Pedro River. If base flow in the river

continues to decrease, the future existence of the riparian plant

community is threatened (Arizona Department of Water Resources 1994,

Jackson et al. 1987)

na Department of Water Resources 1991). Even if

water conservation measures are employed, groundwater drafts and the

capture of mountain front recharge are likely to adversely affect flows

in the San Pedro River. If base flow in the river

continues to decrease, the future existence of the riparian plant

community is threatened (Arizona Department of Water Resources 1994,

Jackson et al. 1987). If the groundwater drops below the elevation of

the channel bed, the wetland plant (herb) association where Lilaeopsis

is found will be the first plant association lost (Arizona Department

of Water Resources 1994).

Fort Huachuca Military Reservation also relies on water from a well

and springs in Garden Canyon (Arizona Department of Water Resources

1991). These diversions and pumping could dewater the stream and damage

or destroy the Lilaeopsis population, particularly during below-average

rainfall periods.

Flows in certain reaches of the Santa Cruz River remained perennial

until groundwater pumping lowered the water table below the streambed.

In 1908, the water table near Tucson was above the streambed, but from

1940-1969, the water table was 6.0-21.0 m (20-70 ft) below the

streambed (De la Torre 1970). Recovery of perennial flow in the Santa

Cruz River and of Lilaeopsis near Tucson is unlikely, given the

importance of groundwater for the metropolitan area.

Groundwater pumping in Mexico threatens Lilaeopsis populations on

both sides of the border. South of the San Bernardino National Wildlife

Refuge, groundwater is being pumped to irrigate farmlands in Mexico,

and this pumping threatens to dry up the springs and streams that

support several listed endangered fish and a population of Lilaeopsis.

The large copper mine at Cananea. Sonora, pumps groundwater for

processing and support services

opsis populations on

both sides of the border. South of the San Bernardino National Wildlife

Refuge, groundwater is being pumped to irrigate farmlands in Mexico,

and this pumping threatens to dry up the springs and streams that

support several listed endangered fish and a population of Lilaeopsis.

The large copper mine at Cananea. Sonora, pumps groundwater for

processing and support services. Although little is known about how

groundwater pumping near Cananea may affect the spring at Ojo de Agua

de Cananea, it is likely that overdrafts would decrease springflow or

dewater the spring, extirpating the Lilaeopsis population. The spring

at Ojo de Aqua de Cananea is also the main municipal water source for

the town of Cananea. This water diversion, particularly if increased,

may adversely affect Lilaeopsis.

Sections of may southern Arizona rivers and streams have been

channelized for flood control, which disrupts natural channel dynamics

and promotes the loss of riparian plant communities. Channelization

modifies the natural hydrograph above and below the channelized

section, which may adversely affect Lilaeopsis and Spiranthes.

Channelization will continue to contribute to riparian habitat decline.

Additional channelization will accelerate the loss any/or degradation

of Lilaeopsis and Spiranthes habitat.

Dredging extirpated the Lilaeopsis population in House Pond. near

the extant population in Black Draw (Warren et al. 1991). The

Lilaeopsis population at Zinn Pond in St. David near the San Pedro

River was probably lost when the pond was dredged and deepened. This

population was last documented in 1953 (Warren et al. 1991).

Livestock grazing potentially affects Lilaeopsis at the ecosystem,

community, population, and individual levels. Cattle generally do not

eat Lilaeopsis because the leaves are too close to the ground, but they

can trample plants

Pond in St. David near the San Pedro

River was probably lost when the pond was dredged and deepened. This

population was last documented in 1953 (Warren et al. 1991).

Livestock grazing potentially affects Lilaeopsis at the ecosystem,

community, population, and individual levels. Cattle generally do not

eat Lilaeopsis because the leaves are too close to the ground, but they

can trample plants. Lilaeopsis is capable of rapidly expanding in

disturbed sites and could recover quickly from light trampling by

extending undisturbed rhizomes (Warren et al. 1991). Light trampling

may also keep plant density low providing favorable Lilaeopsis

microsites.

Poor livestock grazing management can destabilize stream channels

and disturb cienega soils creating conditions unfavorable for

Lilaeopsis. which requires stable stream channels and cienegas. Such

management can also change riparian community structure and diversity

causing a decline in watershed conditions. Poor livestock grazing

management is widely believed to be one of the most significant factors

contributing to regional stream channel entrenchment in the late 1800s.

Poor livestock grazing management in Mexico has severely degraded

the riparian area along Black Draw and its watershed. The degraded

habitat most likely contributed to the severity of a destructive

scouring flood on San Bernardino Creek in 1988, which extirpated two

patches of Lilaeopsis. Overgrazing is occurring immediately adjacent to

the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge and has destabilized the

channel of Black Draw. A headcut moving upstream threatens to undermine

the riparian area recovery that has occurred since the refuge was

acquired. The refuge is implementing management to avoid the

destructive downstream grazing effects.

Well managed livestock grazing and Lilaeopsis are compatible

g immediately adjacent to

the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge and has destabilized the

channel of Black Draw. A headcut moving upstream threatens to undermine

the riparian area recovery that has occurred since the refuge was

acquired. The refuge is implementing management to avoid the

destructive downstream grazing effects.

Well managed livestock grazing and Lilaeopsis are compatible. The

fact that Lilaeopsis and its habitat occur in the upper Santa Cruz

River system in the San Rafael Valley attests to the good land

stewardship of the private landowner and of prior generations of the

family.

The effect of livestock grazing on Spiranthes is unclear. A

Spiranthes population growing at a site grazed for more than 100 years

is larger and more vigorous than a population growing at a site

ungrazed since 1969 (McClaran and Sundt 1992, Newman 1991). Sundt

(pers. comm. in Newman 1991) has suggested differences in soil moisture

and topography between the two sites could explain the differences in

Spiranthes population size and vigor. Another explanation is that S.

delitescens, like many species in the genus, shows an affinity for

habitats with sparse herbaceous cover (McClaran and Sundt 1992).

Further research is needed, but the Service's preliminary conclusion is

that well managed livestock grazing does not harm Spiranthes

populations.

Livestock often denude the vegetation around stock tanks. The

impact of this effect on Sonora tiger salamander populations is unknown

(Collins and Jones 1987), however, the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander

(Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum), a related endangered species from

the central coast of California requires dense vegetation around

breeding ponds and surrounding uplands used by mature metamorphs (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1986)

ock tanks. The

impact of this effect on Sonora tiger salamander populations is unknown

(Collins and Jones 1987), however, the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander

(Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum), a related endangered species from

the central coast of California requires dense vegetation around

breeding ponds and surrounding uplands used by mature metamorphs (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). Aquatic, shoreline, and nearby

terrestrial vegetation cover at Sonora tiger salamander breeding ponds

likely conseals salamanders from predators and provides a forage base

for invertebrates that make up a portion of the salamander's diet. In

addition, livestock probably trample metamorphs, eggs, and possibly

brachiate salamanders. Although Sonora tiger salamanders persist in

stock tanks heavily used by cattle, the effects of grazing and

trampling probably reduce the viability of these populations.

Sand and gravel mining along the San Pedro, Babocomari, and Santa

Cruz Rivers in the United States has occurred, and probably will

continue unless regulated, although no mining occurs within the San

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. Sand and gravel mining

removes riparian vegetation and destabilizes the ecosystem, which could

cause Spiranthes or Lilaeopsis habitat or population losses upstream or

downstream from the mining. These mines also pump groundwater for

processing, and could locally affect groundwater reserves and perennial

stream base flows. Since 1983, groundwater has been used to wash sand

and gravel mined near the Babocomari River. 0.8 km (0.5 mi) west of

highway 90 (Arizona Department of Water Resources 1991). This activity

could affect at least one Spiranthes population.

Rural and urban development, road building, chaining, agriculture,

mining, and other land disturbances that degrade the watershed can

adversely affect Lilaeopsis. These activities are common in the middle

Santa Cruz basin, but much less prevalent in the San Pedro basin

of

highway 90 (Arizona Department of Water Resources 1991). This activity

could affect at least one Spiranthes population.

Rural and urban development, road building, chaining, agriculture,

mining, and other land disturbances that degrade the watershed can

adversely affect Lilaeopsis. These activities are common in the middle

Santa Cruz basin, but much less prevalent in the San Pedro basin. For

these reasons, conservation and recovery of the middle Santa Cruz River

is unlikely, but may still be possible for the upper San Pedro

watershed, given region-wide planning decisions favorable to good

watershed management. Increased development in the upper San Pedro

Valley, including the expansion of existing cities and increased rural

development, will likely increase erosion and have other detrimental

hydrologic effects.

There are few watershed-level disturbances in the upper Santa Cruz

and Black Draw drainages. There were irrigated fields in the Black Draw

watershed, but these were abandoned when the Service acquired the area

as a refuge. The fields are returning to natural vegetation. The San

Rafael Valley, which contains the upper Santa Cruz River, is privately

owned, well managed, and currently undeveloped, with few watershed

disturbing activities. However, there is potential for commercial

development in the upper Santa Cruz basin and resulting watershed

effects.

Riparian areas and cienegas offer oasis-like living and

recreational opportunities for residents of southern Arizona and

northern Sonora. Riparian areas and cienegas such as Sonoita Creek, the

San Pedro River, Canelo Hills cienega, and the perennial creeks of the

Huachuca Mountains receive substantial recreational visitation, and

this is expected to increase with the increasing southern Arizona

population. While well-managed recreation is unlikely to extirpate

Spiranthes or Lilaeopsis populations, severe impacts in unmanaged areas

can compact soils, destabilize steam banks, and decrease riparian plant

density

cienega, and the perennial creeks of the

Huachuca Mountains receive substantial recreational visitation, and

this is expected to increase with the increasing southern Arizona

population. While well-managed recreation is unlikely to extirpate

Spiranthes or Lilaeopsis populations, severe impacts in unmanaged areas

can compact soils, destabilize steam banks, and decrease riparian plant

density.

Stream headcutting threatens the Lilaeopsis and presumed Sonora

tiger salamander populations at Los Fresnos cienega in Sonora. Erosion

is occurring in Arroyo Los Fresnos downstream from the cienega and the

headcut is moving upstream. The causes of this erosion are uncertain,

but are presumably from livestock overgrazing and roads in this

sparsely populated region. If the causes of this erosion are left

unchecked and headcutting continues, it is likely the cienega habitat

will be lost within the foreseeable future. The loss of Los Fresnos

cienega may extirpate the Lilaeopsis and Sonora tiger salamander

populations. If the salamanders at the Los Fresnos cienega are Sonora

tiger salamanders, this would represent the only known natural cienega

habitat occupied by an aquatic population of this species.

The 15 extant aquatic Sonora tiger salamander populations described

by Collins et al. (1988) and the new localities in Scotia Canyon and

Copper Canyon are all in stock tanks or impounded cienegas constructed

to collect runoff for livestock. Most of these tanks likely date to the

1920s and 1930s when government subsidies were available to offset

construction costs (Brown 1985). These stock tanks, to some degree,

have created and replaced permanent or semi-permanent Sonora tiger

salamander water sources.

Although the tanks provide relatively permanent aquatic habitats,

current management and the dynamic nature of these artificial

impoundments compromise their ability to support salamander populations

in the long term

lable to offset

construction costs (Brown 1985). These stock tanks, to some degree,

have created and replaced permanent or semi-permanent Sonora tiger

salamander water sources.

Although the tanks provide relatively permanent aquatic habitats,

current management and the dynamic nature of these artificial

impoundments compromise their ability to support salamander populations

in the long term. The tanks collect silt from upstream drainages and

must be cleaned out periodically, typically with heavy earth moving

equipment. This maintenance is done when stock tanks are dry or nearly

dry at an average interval of about 15 years (L. Dupee. Coronado

National Forest, Sierra Vista, Arizona, pers. comm. 1993). As the tanks

dry out, aquatic salamanders typically metamorphose and migrate from

the pond. However, if water is present during maintenance, some

branchiate salamanders would likely be lost due to excavation of the

remaining aquatic habitat. Any terrestrial metamorphs at the tank or in

areas disturbed would also be lost during maintenance activities.

Flooding and drought pose additional threats to stock tank

populations of Sonora tiger salamanders. The tanks are simple earthen

impoundments without water control structures. Heavy flooding could

erode and breach downstream berms resulting in aquatic habitat loss.

Long-term drought could dry up the tanks.

Sonora tiger salamanders have persisted in stock tanks despite

periodic maintenance, flooding, and drought. If the tanks refill soon

after events that damage the aquatic habitat, they could presumably be

recolonized through terrestrial metamorph reproduction. However, if a

tank was dry for several years and isolated from other salamander

populations, insufficient terrestrial salamanders may remain and

immigration from other populations may be inadequate to recolonize the

stock tank. Potential grazing practice changes also threaten aquatic

Sonora tiger salamander populations

uld presumably be

recolonized through terrestrial metamorph reproduction. However, if a

tank was dry for several years and isolated from other salamander

populations, insufficient terrestrial salamanders may remain and

immigration from other populations may be inadequate to recolonize the

stock tank. Potential grazing practice changes also threaten aquatic

Sonora tiger salamander populations. Stock tanks could be abandoned or

replaced by other watering facilities, such as windmills and troughs,

which do not provide habitat for salamanders.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. No commercial, recreational, or educational uses

for Lilaeopsis are known. A limited amount of scientific collecting is

likely, but is expected to pose no threat to the species.

Although no specific cases of commercial Spiranthes delitescens

collecting have been documented, commercial dealers, hobbyists, and

other collectors are widely known to significantly threaten some

natural orchid populations. The commercial value of an orchid may

increase after it is listed as threatened or endangered. To limit the

possible adverse effects of illegal collecting, no specific Spiranthes

population locations are discussed in this proposed rule, nor will

critical habitat be designated. No recreational or educational uses for

Spiranthes are currently known. The small amount of scientific

collecting that has occurred is regulated by the Arizona Native Plant

Law (A.R.S. Chapter 7, Article 1).

Collecting Ambystoma in the San Rafael Valley of Arizona is

currently prohibited by Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 41.

Collins and Jones (1987) reported an illegal Ambystoma collection from

the San Rafael Valley and suspected that bait collectors and anglers

often move salamanders among stock tanks. The extent of this activity

and its threat to populations is unknown. However, all Sonora tiger

salamander populations are relatively small (Collins and Jones 1987)

ed by Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 41.

Collins and Jones (1987) reported an illegal Ambystoma collection from

the San Rafael Valley and suspected that bait collectors and anglers

often move salamanders among stock tanks. The extent of this activity

and its threat to populations is unknown. However, all Sonora tiger

salamander populations are relatively small (Collins and Jones 1987).

Collecting may significantly reduce the size of branchiate populations

and increase the chance of extirpations.

C. Disease or predation. Neither Lilaeopsis nor Spiranthes are

known to be threatened by disease or predation.

Sonora tiger salamanders are invariably eliminated through

nonnative fish predation, particularly by sunfish and catfish (Collins

and Jones 1987). Nonnative fish introductions were implicated in three

recent Sonora tiger salamander extirpations from stock tanks (Collins

et al. 1988). The effect of native fishes on salamander populations is

unknown, but some native species may also prey on Sonora tiger

salamanders.

Bullfrogs occur at some Sonora tiger salamander localities. These

introduced predators likely prey on salamander eggs, larvae, and adults

(Collins et al. 1988). They may also be a vector for a disease with

symptoms similar to Aeromonas infection (``red leg'') (Marcus 1981)

that killed all branchiate salamanders at Huachuca Tank,

Parker Canyon Tank #1, and Inez Tank in 1985 (Collins et al. 1988). The

latter two tanks were recolonized within the next two years, presumably

by reproducing terrestrial metamorphs that survived the disease.

However, no recolonization of Huachuca Tank had occurred as of spring

1988 (Collins et al. 1988), and the species was not observed there

during surveys in 1993 (J. Collins, pers. comm. 1993). Nonnative fish

were also present at Huachuca Tank and likely contributed to this

extirpation

onized within the next two years, presumably

by reproducing terrestrial metamorphs that survived the disease.

However, no recolonization of Huachuca Tank had occurred as of spring

1988 (Collins et al. 1988), and the species was not observed there

during surveys in 1993 (J. Collins, pers. comm. 1993). Nonnative fish

were also present at Huachuca Tank and likely contributed to this

extirpation.

Surveys conducted in 1993 and 1994 revealed that nonnative fish and

bullfrogs were recently introduced at several northern San Rafael

Valley Sonora tiger salamander localities. Populations appear very low

or are extirpated at several of these localities, particularly in the

northwestern portion of the valley. Additional survey work in 1994 will

clarify the status of these populations. In contrast, populations in

the southeastern portion of the valley appear large and robust (J.

Collins, pers. comm. 1994).

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Many Federal

and State laws and regulations can protect these three species and

their habitat. However, Federal and State agency discretion allowed

under these laws still permits adverse affects on listed and rare

species. Adding Lilaeopsis, Spiranthes, and the Sonora tiger salamander

to the endangered species list will help reduce adverse affects to

these species and will direct Federal agencies to work towards their

recovery.

None of the taxa in this proposed rule are considered rare,

threatened, or endangered by the Mexican government (Secretario de

Desarrollo Urbano Y Ecologia 1991), nor do their habitats receive

special protection in Mexico.

On July 1, 1975, all species in the Orchid family (including

Spiranthes delitescens) were included in Appendix II of the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES). CITES is an international treaty established to prevent

international trade that may be detrimental to the survival of plants

and animals

abitats receive

special protection in Mexico.

On July 1, 1975, all species in the Orchid family (including

Spiranthes delitescens) were included in Appendix II of the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES). CITES is an international treaty established to prevent

international trade that may be detrimental to the survival of plants

and animals. A CITES export permit must be issued by the exporting

county before an Appendix II species may be shipped. CITES permits may

not be issued if the export will be detrimental to the survival of the

species or if the specimens were not legally acquired. However, CITES

does not itself regulate take or domestic trade. CITES provides no

protection to Lilaeopsis or the Sonora tiger salamander.

The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.), as amended in 1982,

provides some protection for these three species. Under the Lacey Act

it is prohibited to import, export, sell, receive, acquire, purchase,

or engage in interstate or foreign commerce in any species taken,

possessed, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of

the United States, any Tribal law, or any law or regulation of any

State. Interstate transport of protected species occurs despite the

Lacey Act because enforcement is difficult.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)

(16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) direct Federal agencies to prepare

programmatic-level management plans to guide long-term resource

management decisions. The goals of the Coronado National Forest Plan

(Plan) include a commitment to maintain viable populations of all

native wildlife, fish, and plant species within the Forest's

jurisdiction through improved habitat management (Coronado National

Forest 1986a)

.C. 1600 et seq.) direct Federal agencies to prepare

programmatic-level management plans to guide long-term resource

management decisions. The goals of the Coronado National Forest Plan

(Plan) include a commitment to maintain viable populations of all

native wildlife, fish, and plant species within the Forest's

jurisdiction through improved habitat management (Coronado National

Forest 1986a). The Plan provides a list of rare plants and animals

found on the Forest, but gives only a very general description of

programmatic-level management guidelines and expected effort (Coronado

National Forest 1986a). The Coronado National Forest is committed to

multiple use, and where the demands of various interest groups

conflict, the Forest must make decisions that represent compromises

among these interests (Coronado National Forest 1986b). These types of

compromises have sometimes resulted in adverse effects to listed

endangered and threatened species.

The Plan's endangered species program includes participation in

reaching recovery plan objectives for listed species, habitat

coordination and surveys for listed species, and habitat improvement

(Coronado National Forest 1986b). After acknowledging budget

constraints, the Plan states that studies of endangered plants will

occur at approximately the 1980 funding level. The Coronado National

Forest, which manages habitat for 10 of the 18 extant aquatic Sonora

tiger salamander populations, considers the Sonora tiger salamander a

sensitive species and a management indicator species, which receives

special consideration in land management decisions (Coronado National

Forest 1986a). The ability of the Forest Service to manage the three

species addressed here is limited because many of the populations occur

off Forest Service lands and/or require ecosystem-wide management

largely beyond Forest Service control.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.

Sec

receives

special consideration in land management decisions (Coronado National

Forest 1986a). The ability of the Forest Service to manage the three

species addressed here is limited because many of the populations occur

off Forest Service lands and/or require ecosystem-wide management

largely beyond Forest Service control.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.

Sec. 4321-4370a) requires Federal agencies to consider the

environmental impacts of their actions. NEPA requires Federal agencies

to describe a proposed action, consider alternatives, identify and

disclose potential environmental impacts of each alternative, and

involve the public in the decision-making process. It does not require

Federal agencies to select the alternative having the least significant

environmental impacts. A Federal action agency may choose an action

that will adversely affect listed or candidate species provided these

effects were known and identified in a NEPA document.

All three species in this proposed rule inhabit wetlands that have

varying protection under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376), as amended, and Federal

Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990 (Protection of

Wetlands). Cumulatively, these Federal regulations have been inadequate

to halt population extirpations and habitat losses for the three

proposed species.

The Arizona Native Plant Law (A.R.S. Chapter 7, Article 1) protects

Spiranthes delitescens and Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva as

``highly safeguarded'' species. A permit from the Arizona Department of

Agriculture (ADA) must be obtained to legally collect these species on

public or private lands in Arizona. Permits may be issued for

scientific and educational purposes only. It is unlawful to destroy,

dig up, mutilate, collect, cut, harvest, or take any living ``highly

safeguarded'' native plant from private, State, or Federal land without

a permit

s. A permit from the Arizona Department of

Agriculture (ADA) must be obtained to legally collect these species on

public or private lands in Arizona. Permits may be issued for

scientific and educational purposes only. It is unlawful to destroy,

dig up, mutilate, collect, cut, harvest, or take any living ``highly

safeguarded'' native plant from private, State, or Federal land without

a permit. However, private landowners and Federal and State public

agencies may clear land and destroy habitat after giving the ADA

sufficient notice to allow plant salvage. Despite the protections of

the Arizona Native Plant Law, legal and illegal damage and destruction

of plants and habitat occur.

Collecting Ambystoma in the San Rafael Valley is prohibited under

Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 41, except under special permit.

Nevertheless, illegal collecting occurs (Collins and Jones 1987). The

species is listed by the State as endangered (Arizona Game and Fish

Department 1988), however, this designation affords the species or its

habitat no legal protection. Transport and stocking of live bullfrogs

and fishing with live bait fish or Ambystoma within the range of this

salamander in Arizona is prohibited by Arizona Game and

Fish Commission Orders 41 and R12-4-316, respectively. However,

bullfrogs and nonnative fish are present at several extant and historic

Sonora tiger salamander localities and introductions continue (Collins

and Jones 1987; James Collins, pers. comm. 1994). Furthermore,

abandonment, modification, or breaching of stock tanks is allowed on

either private or public lands. Such actions could eliminate Sonora

tiger salamander populations.

State of Arizona Executive Order Number 89-16 (Streams and Riparian

Resources), signed June 10, 1989, directs State agencies to evaluate

their actions and implement changes, as appropriate, to allow for

riparian resources restoration

nment, modification, or breaching of stock tanks is allowed on

either private or public lands. Such actions could eliminate Sonora

tiger salamander populations.

State of Arizona Executive Order Number 89-16 (Streams and Riparian

Resources), signed June 10, 1989, directs State agencies to evaluate

their actions and implement changes, as appropriate, to allow for

riparian resources restoration. Implementation of this regulation may

ameliorate adverse effects of some State actions on the species in this

rule.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. Arizona anglers and commercial bait dealers often introduce

larval tiger salamanders into ponds for future bait collecting (Lowe

1954, Collins et al. 1988). Collins and Jones (1987) reported that

tiger salamanders were illegally collected from the San Rafael Valley

and transported to at least two tanks in the northern Patagonia

Mountains. Bait dealers or others moving Sonora tiger salamanders to

new locations could establish new populations. Collins and Jones (1987)

suggest that moving of salamanders has greatly influenced their present

distribution in the San Rafael Valley. Moving could also transmit

disease and cause unintentional fish or bullfrog introductions, which

would extirpate extant populations.

Moving poses an additional threat. A. t. mavortium is common in

Arizona stock tanks and ponds to the east of the San Rafael Valley.

Bait dealers and anglers introduced many of these populations (Collins

1981, Collins and Jones 1987). If A. t. mavortium is introduced into

Sonora tiger salamander localities, populations could be lost due to

genetic swamping by interbreeding of the two subspecies.

Two populations of Lilaeopsis have been lost due to unknown causes.

Despite the presence of suitable habitat, no plans have been observed

at Monkey Spring near Sonita Creek since 1965. Lilaeopsis collected in

1958 along the San Pedro River near St. David, but no longer exists

there, nor is their suitable habitat

ns could be lost due to

genetic swamping by interbreeding of the two subspecies.

Two populations of Lilaeopsis have been lost due to unknown causes.

Despite the presence of suitable habitat, no plans have been observed

at Monkey Spring near Sonita Creek since 1965. Lilaeopsis collected in

1958 along the San Pedro River near St. David, but no longer exists

there, nor is their suitable habitat.

Aggressive nonnative plants disrupt the native riparian plant

community. The nonnative Sorghum halepense (Johnson grass) is invading

one Spiranthes site (Gori in litt. 1993). This tall grass forms a dense

monoculture, displacing less competitive native plants. If Johnson

grass continues to spread, the Spiranthes population may be lost (Gori

in litt. 1993). Cynodon dactylon (Bermuda grass) also displaces native

riparian plants, including cottonwoods and willows that stabilize

stream channels. Bermuda grass forms a thick sod in which many native

plants are unable to establish. In certain microsites, Bermuda grass

may directly compete with Lilaeopsis or Sprianthes. There are no known

effective methods for eliminating Bermuda grass or Johnson grass from

natural plant communities.

Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum (watercress) is another nonnative

plant now abundant along perennial streams in Arizona. It is successful

in disturbed areas and can form dense monocultures that can outcompete

Lilaeopsis populations.

The limited number of populations and individuals threatens all

three taxa in this proposed rule with demographic and environmental

stochastic extinction. The restriction of these three species to a

relatively small area in southeastern Arizona and adjacent Sonora also

increases the chance that a single environmental catastrophe, such as a

severe tropical storm, could eliminate populations or cause extinction.

This is of particular concern for Sonora tiger salamanders inhabiting

stock tanks that could wash out during a storm

chastic extinction. The restriction of these three species to a

relatively small area in southeastern Arizona and adjacent Sonora also

increases the chance that a single environmental catastrophe, such as a

severe tropical storm, could eliminate populations or cause extinction.

This is of particular concern for Sonora tiger salamanders inhabiting

stock tanks that could wash out during a storm. Furthermore, Sonora

tiger salamander genetic heterozygosity is the lowest reported for any

salamander (Jones et al. 1988). Low heterozygosity indicates low

genetic variation, which increases demographic stochasticity and the

chance of local extirpations (Shafer 1990).

Finding of a Sonora tiger salamander recently at Oak Spring,

approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi) from the nearest known aquatic

population, provides evidence these animals are capable of at least

that distance of overland dispersal. Seasonal movement to and from

breeding ponds is a common phenomenon in amphibians. Distances of these

seasonal movements are generally less than 0.5 km (0.3 mi), although

movements of more than 11 km (7 mi) have been documented for the red-

bellied newt (Taricha rivularis) (Zug 1993). The ability of Sonora

tiger salamanders to move between populations is unknown, but arid

grassland, savanna, or pine-oak woodland separates all populations and

movement through these relatively dry landscapes is probably limited.

Movement would be most likely during storms or where wet drainages are

available as movement corridors. The distance between aquatic

populations of Sonora tiger salamander is more than 2 km (1.2 mi) in

most cases, and much greater distances separate many of the sites.

Thus, even if these salamanders are capable of moving relatively long

distances, some populations are probably effectively geographically

isolated. Small isolated populations have an increased probability of

extirpation (Wilcox and Murphy 1985)

tween aquatic

populations of Sonora tiger salamander is more than 2 km (1.2 mi) in

most cases, and much greater distances separate many of the sites.

Thus, even if these salamanders are capable of moving relatively long

distances, some populations are probably effectively geographically

isolated. Small isolated populations have an increased probability of

extirpation (Wilcox and Murphy 1985). Once populations are extirpated,

natural recolonization of these isolated habitats may not occur

(Frankel and Soule 1981).

The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and

commercial information available regarding the past, present, and

future threats faced by these taxa in determining to propose this rule.

These three taxa are vulnerable to one or more of the following

threats--habitat degradation and loss through groundwater pumping,

livestock grazing, watershed degradation, flooding, drought,

urbanization, and recreation; nonnative plant and vertebrate

competition or predation; disease; and increased extirpation chance due

to low genetic variation in the Sonora tiger salamander. The limited

distributions of these taxa and the small size of most extant

populations makes them particularly vulnerable to extinction from

stochastic events.

Because Spiranthes, Lilaeopsis, and the Sonora tiger salamander are

in danger of extinction throughout all or significant portions of their

ranges, they fit the Act's definition of endangered. Based on the

Service's evaluation of the status and threats facing these species,

the preferred action is to propose Spiranthes, Lilaeopsis, and the

Sonora tiger salamander as endangered. The Service believes that

designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Lilaeopsis and the

Sonora tiger salamander, but finds that critical habitat is not now

determinable for these two species. Critical habitat designation would

not be prudent for the Spiranthes. The rationales for these decisions

are discussed in the following section of this proposal.

a tiger salamander as endangered. The Service believes that

designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Lilaeopsis and the

Sonora tiger salamander, but finds that critical habitat is not now

determinable for these two species. Critical habitat designation would

not be prudent for the Spiranthes. The rationales for these decisions

are discussed in the following section of this proposal.

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 considerations

or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area

occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a

determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the

species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures

needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act

is no longer necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing

regulations (50 CFR 242.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent

and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time

a species is determined to be endangered or threatened. The Service

finds that designation of critical habitat is not prudent for

Spiranthes delitescens at this time. Service regulations (50 CFR

424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat is not prudent

when one or both of the following situations exist--(1) the species is

threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of

critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to

the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be

beneficial to the species.

As discussed under Factor B in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting

the Species,'' Spiranthes is threatened by collecting

ing situations exist--(1) the species is

threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of

critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to

the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be

beneficial to the species.

As discussed under Factor B in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting

the Species,'' Spiranthes is threatened by collecting. If it is listed,

collecting of Spiranthes would be prohibited under the Act in cases of

(1) removal and reduction to possession from lands under Federal

jurisdiction, or malicious damage or destruction on such lands; and (2)

removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying Spiranthes in

knowing violation of any State law or regulation, including State

criminal trespass law. Such provisions are difficult to enforce, and

publication of critical habitat descriptions and maps would make

Spiranthes more vulnerable and increase enforcement problems. All

involved parties and principal landowners are aware of the location and

importance of protecting this species' habitat. Habitat protection will

be addressed through the recovery process and through the Section 7

provisions of the Act. Therefore it would not now be prudent to

determine critical habitat for Spiranthes delitescens.

Lilaeopsis is not threatened by collecting and the Service knows of

no circumstance where the species is threatened by vandalism.

Therefore, critical habitat designation is prudent for this species.

Salamander collecting by bait dealers and anglers has been

identified as a Sonora tiger salamander threat and publication of

salamander localities rule could facilitate collecting. However, other

subspecies of A. tigrinum are readily available from numerous less

remote Arizona localities, collecting these other subspecies is legal,

and State law prohibits collecting and stocking salamanders in the

range of the Sonora tiger salamander

nglers has been

identified as a Sonora tiger salamander threat and publication of

salamander localities rule could facilitate collecting. However, other

subspecies of A. tigrinum are readily available from numerous less

remote Arizona localities, collecting these other subspecies is legal,

and State law prohibits collecting and stocking salamanders in the

range of the Sonora tiger salamander. Thus, publication of critical

habitat localities is unlikely to substantially increase threats to the

Sonora tiger salamander. The Service finds the benefits of designating

critical habitat outweigh any risk of increased collecting and

determines that designation of critical habitat is prudent for the

Sonora tiger salamander.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to consider

economic and other impacts of designating a particular area as critical

habitat. Information concerning probable impacts that would be

associated with designation of critical habitat for these two species

has not yet been fully assessed or analyzed. Efforts aimed at gathering

and analyzing such information are currently underway, but have not

been completed. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)(i) specify that

critical habitat is not determinable when ``Information sufficient to

perform required analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking

* * *'' The Service therefore finds that critical habitat for the

Huachuca water umbel and the Sonora tiger salamander is not now

determinable. When information becomes available and the review has

been completed, the Service intends to propose designation of critical

habitat for both species to the maximum extent prudent.

Available Conservation Measures

impacts of the designation is lacking

* * *'' The Service therefore finds that critical habitat for the

Huachuca water umbel and the Sonora tiger salamander is not now

determinable. When information becomes available and the review has

been completed, the Service intends to propose designation of critical

habitat for both species to the maximum extent prudent.

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, as amended, requires Federal agencies to

evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or

listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical

habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR

part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the

Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or

adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to

ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy

or adversely modify its critical habitat

e continued

existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or

adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to

ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy

or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may

affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible

Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.

Two of the taxa in this proposal, the Sonora tiger salamander and

Lilaeopsis, occur on the Coronado National Forest. The latter species

also occurs on the Fort Huachuca Military Reservation managed by the

Department of Defense.

Examples of Federal actions that may affect the three species in

this proposal include--issuing mining permits, managing recreation,

road construction, livestock grazing, granting right-of-ways, stock

tank development and maintenance, and military activities. These and

other Federal actions would require formal section 7 consultation if

the action agency determines that the proposed action may affect listed

species. Development on private or State lands requiring permits from

Federal agencies, such as 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, would also be subject to the section 7 consultation process.

Private actions that are not Federally funded or permitted would

require a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit if implementation would result in

incidental take of Sonora tiger salamander.

The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of

general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered

plants. All trade prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,

implemented by 50 CFR 17.61, apply

tions that are not Federally funded or permitted would

require a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit if implementation would result in

incidental take of Sonora tiger salamander.

The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of

general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered

plants. All trade prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,

implemented by 50 CFR 17.61, apply. These prohibitions, in part, make

it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United

States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce

in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale listed

species in interstate or foreign commerce, or to remove and reduce the

species to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In

addition, for plants listed as endangered, the Act prohibits the

malicious damage or destruction on areas under Federal jurisdiction and

the removal, cutting digging up, or damaging or destroying of such

plants in knowing violation of any State law or regulation, including

State criminal trespass law. Certain exceptions apply to

agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.

The Act and 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63 also provide for the issuance of

permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving

endangered plants under certain circumstances. Such permits are

available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or

survival of the species. It is anticipated that few trade permits would

ever be sought or issued for Lilaeopsis or Spiranthes because these

species are not common in cultivation or in the wild.

The Act and implementing regulations set forth a series of general

prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered wildlife

available for scientific purposes and to enhance the propagation or

survival of the species. It is anticipated that few trade permits would

ever be sought or issued for Lilaeopsis or Spiranthes because these

species are not common in cultivation or in the wild.

The Act and implementing regulations set forth a series of general

prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered wildlife. The

prohibitions codified at 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make it illegal for any

person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take

(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture

or collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export, ship in

interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or sell or

offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It

also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship

any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions

apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations

governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.23. Such permits

are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or

survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in the course of

otherwise lawful activities.

Requests for copies of the regulations on listed plants and

wildlife and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed

to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Branch of Endangered Species/

Permits, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (telephone 505/

766-3972; facsimile 505/766-8063).

Public Comments Solicited

or for incidental take in the course of

otherwise lawful activities.

Requests for copies of the regulations on listed plants and

wildlife and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed

to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Branch of Endangered Species/

Permits, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (telephone 505/

766-3972; facsimile 505/766-8063).

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this

proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,

comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental

agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested

party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments

particularly are sought concerning.

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to these species;

(2) The location of any additional populations of these species and

the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be

critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;

(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and

population size of these species;

(4) Current or planned activities in the subject areas and their

possible impacts on these species; and

Final promulgation of regulations on these species will take into

consideration the comments and any additional information received by

the Service, and such communications may lead to a final regulation

that differs from this proposal.

The Endangered Species Act provides for one or more public hearings

on this proposal, if requested. Request must be received within 45 days

of the date of publication of the proposal in the Federal Register.

Such requests must be made in writing and addressed to the State

Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

t 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following in

alphabetical order, under ``Amphibians,'' to the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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

Species Vertebrate population

--------------------------------------------------- Historic range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special

Common name Scientific name threatened habitat rules

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

* * * * * * *

Amphibians

* * * * * * *

Salamander, Sonora tiger Ambystoma tigrinum U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico..... Entire................. E NA NA

stebbinsi.

* * * * * * *

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

3. Section 17.12(h) is amended by adding the

following two species in alphabetical order to the List of Endangered

and Threatened Plants to read as follows:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *

ebbinsi.

* * * * * * *

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

3. Section 17.12(h) is amended by adding the

following two species in alphabetical order to the List of Endangered

and Threatened 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 Huachuca water umbel.... U.S.A. (AZ), Mexico..... Apiaceae............... E NA NA

ssp. recurva.

* * * * * * *

Spiranthes delitescens.. Canelo Hills ladies'- U.S.A. (AZ)............. Orchidaceae............ E NA NA

tresses.

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: March 29, 1995.

Mollie H. Beattie,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 95-8176 Filed 3-31-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M