Federal Register - United States Fish and Wildlife Service · pineapple cactus) to be an endangered...
6
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 183 / Thursday, September 23, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 498’5 Dated: August 20, 1993. Richard N. Smith, Acting Director. [FR Doc. 93—23160 Filed 9—22—93; 8:45 am] 8UJNG CODE 4310-55-P ~NiOi8-A575 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Plant Plma Pineapple Cactus (Coryphantha Scheerl var. Robustlspina) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTiON: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines Coryphantha .scheeri var, robustispina (Pima pineapple cactus) to be an endangered species under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. The Service proposed the species for listing as endangered on April 20, 1992. This species is known from Pirna and Santa Cruz Counties, southern Arizona, and northern Sonora, Mexico. Threats to the species include illegal collection, habitat degradation due to recreation, historical and present overuse of the habitat by livestock, and habitat loss due to mining, agriculture, road construction, urbanization, and range management practices to increase livestock forage. This action will implement Federal protection provided by the Act for Pima pineapple cactus. Critical habitat is not being designated. EFFECTiVE DATE: October 25, 1993, ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Arizona Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3616 West Thomas Road, suite 6, Phoenix, Arizona 85019. FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTACT: Sue Rutman, at the above address (Telephone 602/379—4720). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Pima pineapple cactus is an attractive hemispherical plant, the adults measuring 10—46 cm (4—18 in.) tall and 7.5—18 cm (3—7 in.) in diameter. Each spine cluster has one strong, usually hooked central spine and 6—15 straight radial spines (Benson 1982; Ecosphere Environmental Services, Inc. (EES) 1992). The spines are very stout, usually straw colored, but become almost black with age (EES 1992). Plants can be single-stemmed, multi-headed, or can appear in clusters formed when seeds germinate at the base of a mother plant or when a tubercle of the mother plant roots. The silky yellow (rarely white) flowers appear in early July with the onset of summer rains, and flowering continues until August (EES 1992). The fruits are green, ellipsoid, succulent, and sweet. Mills (1991) observed that the fruits disappear rapidly from the plant, but others (EES 1992, Benson 1982) note that the fruits may be seen on the plants at any time of the year because they often become trapped in the spines. Mills (1991) believes the plants have short life spans, and pollination, fruit set, and seed set are all normal. Coryph anth a sch eeri var. robustispina was first collected in 1856 by Mr. A. Schott, who found the plants growing in a grassland on the south side of the Baboquivari Mountains, Sonora, Mexico. These plants were originally named Marnmillaria rob ustispina (Engelmann 1856), and subsequently underwent several name changes (Kuntze 1891, Britton and Rose 1963, Marshall 1953). Lyman Benson (1969) published the most recent revision, which split Coxyphantha scheeri into three varieties, including variety robustispina. The Pima pineapple cactus grows in alluvial basins or on hillsides in semi- desert grassland and Sonoran desert- scrub in southern Arizona and northern Mexico. Soils range from shallow to deep, and silty to rocky, with a preference for silty to gravelly deep alluvial soils (EES 1992). This cactus occurs most commonly in open areas on flat ridgetops or areas with less than 10— 15 percent slope (Mills 1991, EES 1992). The species is not common or abundant within its habitat, but is sparsely distributed where found. Dominant plant species vary but include Acacia constricta (white-thom acacia), Larrea tridentata (creosotebush), Prosopis velutina (velvet mesquite), Ambrosia deltoidea (triangle-leaf bursage), Gutierrezia microceph ala (thread snakeweed), Opuntia fulgida (chain fruit cholla), Isocoma tenuisecta, Eragrostis lehmanniana (Lehman’s lovegrass), and various other cacti and grasses (Mills 1991, EES 1992). The Pima pineapple cactus is found from 700—1,400 m (2,300—4,500 ft) elevation (EES 1992) in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, southern Arizona, and northern Sonora, Mexico (Benson 1982, Phillips 1981). The range extends east from the Baboquiveri Mountains to the western foothills of the Santa Rita Mountains. The northernmost boundary is near Tucson. Surveys conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BR) verified the northern, western, and eastern tange boundaries (EES 1992). The southern boundary of the range is less well understood, but is believed to extend southward a relatively short distance into Sonora, Mexico. The number of hectares or square kilometers of potential habitat is difficult to estimate because of the species’ habitat requirements and the topographic complexity within its range. The range of Pima pineapple cactus extends approximately 72 km (45 mi) east to west and 80 km (50 mi) north to south. Within this range there are large areas of unsuitable habitat. For example, Pima pineapple cactus does not occur in mountainous areas including the Sierrita, Baboquivari, Santa Rita, Quinlan, Coyote, Atascesa, Pajarito, Cerro Colorado, San Luis, and Tumacacori mountains. On a smaller scale, the species occupies habitats that are relatively flat and sparsely vegetated. Therefore, in rolling hilly habitats, the species has been found only on flat hilltops and not slopes or drainages separating the hilltops. The species is not found in riparian areas such as the Santa Cruz River valley or the Sonoita Creek drainage of Arizona. It is difficult to estimate population density accurately because the Pima pineapple cactus is difficult to find in the field (Mills 1991). Minimum density estimates for areas near the Sierrita Mountains of Arizona range from a low of 0.12 plants/hectare (0.05 plants/acre) to a high of 0.54 plants/hectare (0.22 plants/acre) (Mills 1991). Little is known about the fire ecology of the Pima pineapple cactus. Studies of the response of succulents to fire have shown that small cacti have high mortality rates when directly exposed to high temperatures from fires (Thomas 1991, Thomas and Goodson 1991). Studies have also shown that mortality does not necessarily occur immediately after the fire but may be delayed for a year or more while the plant continues to survive using stored nutrients (Thomas 1991). Nineteen Pima pineapple cacti burned in 1991 survived one year in areas that had experienced fires of varying heat intensity (D. Robinett, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), in Iitt. 1992). The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (BANWR) conducts controlled burning of introduced grasses to facilitate recovery efforts of the endangered masked bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus ridgwayi). To protect the Pima pineapple cactus occurring in these same areas, the BANWR surveys the entire area proposed for controlled burning for the cactus. The BANWR will minimize any adverse effects of the
Transcript of Federal Register - United States Fish and Wildlife Service · pineapple cactus) to be an endangered...
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 183 / Thursday, September23, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 498’5
Dated:August20, 1993.Richard N. Smith,ActingDirector.[FR Doc. 93—23160Filed 9—22—93; 8:45 am]8UJNG CODE 4310-55-P
~NiOi8-A575
Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Determination ofEndangered Status for the Plant PlmaPineapple Cactus (CoryphanthaScheerl var. Robustlspina)AGENCY: Fish andWildlife Service,Interior.ACTiON: Final rule.
SUMMARY: TheFish andWildlife Service(Service)determinesCoryphantha.scheerivar, robustispina(Pimapineapplecactus)to be anendangeredspeciesundertheauthorityof theEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973(Act),asamended.The Serviceproposedthespeciesfor listing asendangeredonApril 20, 1992.This speciesis knownfrom PirnaandSantaCruzCounties,southernArizona, andnorthernSonora,Mexico. Threatsto thespeciesincludeillegal collection,habitatdegradationdueto recreation,historicalandpresentoveruseof thehabitatby livestock,andhabitatlossdueto mining,agriculture,roadconstruction,urbanization,andrangemanagementpracticesto increaselivestockforage.This actionwillimplementFederalprotectionprovidedby theAct for Pimapineapplecactus.Critical habitatis not beingdesignated.EFFECTiVE DATE: October25, 1993,ADDRESSES: Thecompletefile for thisrule is availablefor inspection,byappointment,duringnormalbusinesshoursat theArizonaEcologicalServicesOffice, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service,3616WestThomasRoad,suite 6,Phoenix,Arizona85019.FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTACT: SueRutman,attheaboveaddress(Telephone602/379—4720).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
ThePimapineapplecactusis anattractivehemisphericalplant, theadultsmeasuring10—46 cm(4—18 in.)tall and7.5—18 cm(3—7 in.) in diameter.Eachspineclusterhasonestrong,usuallyhookedcentralspineand6—15straightradialspines(Benson1982;EcosphereEnvironmentalServices,Inc.(EES)1992).Thespinesareverystout,usuallystrawcolored,butbecomealmostblackwith age(EES1992).Plantscanbesingle-stemmed,multi-headed,or
canappearin clustersformedwhenseedsgerminateatthebaseof amotherplant or whenatubercleof themotherplant roots.Thesilky yellow (rarelywhite) flowersappearin earlyJuly withtheonsetof summerrains,andfloweringcontinuesuntil August (EES1992).The fruits aregreen,ellipsoid,succulent,andsweet.Mills (1991)observedthatthefruits disappearrapidly from theplant,but others(EES1992, Benson1982)notethatthefruitsmaybeseenon theplantsat anytimeof theyearbecausetheyoftenbecometrappedin thespines.Mills (1991)believestheplantshaveshort life spans,andpollination, fruit set, andseedsetareall normal.
Coryphantha scheerivar. robustispinawasfirst collectedin 1856by Mr. A.Schott,who foundtheplantsgrowing inagrasslandonthesouthside of theBaboquivariMountains,Sonora,Mexico.TheseplantswereoriginallynamedMarnmillaria robustispina(Engelmann1856), andsubsequentlyunderwentseveralnamechanges(Kuntze1891,Britton andRose1963,Marshall1953).Lyman Benson(1969)publishedthemostrecentrevision,whichsplit Coxyphanthascheeriintothreevarieties,includingvarietyrobustispina.
ThePimapineapplecactusgrowsinalluvial basinsoron hillsidesin semi-desertgrasslandandSonorandesert-scrubin southernArizonaandnorthernMexico. Soils rangefrom shallowtodeep,andsilty to rocky,with apreferencefor silty to gravellydeepalluvial soils (EES 1992).This cactusoccursmostcommonlyin openareasonflat ridgetopsor areaswith lessthan 10—15 percentslope(Mills 1991,EES1992).Thespeciesis not commonor abundantwithin its habitat,but is sparselydistributedwherefound. Dominantplant speciesvarybutincludeAcaciaconstricta(white-thomacacia),Larreatridentata(creosotebush),Prosopisvelutina(velvet mesquite),Ambrosiadeltoidea(triangle-leafbursage),Gutierreziamicrocephala (threadsnakeweed),Opuntiafulgida (chainfruit cholla), Isocomatenuisecta,Eragrostislehmanniana(Lehman’slovegrass),andvariousothercactiandgrasses(Mills 1991,EES 1992).
ThePimapineapplecactusis foundfrom 700—1,400m (2,300—4,500ft)elevation(EES 1992)in PimaandSantaCruzCounties,southernArizona, andnorthernSonora,Mexico (Benson1982,Phillips 1981).Therangeextendseastfrom theBaboquiveriMountainsto thewesternfoothills of theSantaRitaMountains.Thenorthernmostboundaryis nearTucson.SurveysconductedbytheU.S. Bureauof Reclamation(BR)
verifiedthenorthern,western,andeasterntangeboundaries(EES1992).Thesouthernboundaryof therangeislesswell understood,butis believedtoextendsouthwardarelatively shortdistanceinto Sonora,Mexico.
The numberof hectaresor squarekilometersof potentialhabitatisdifficult to estimatebecauseof thespecies’habitatrequirementsandthetopographiccomplexitywithin itsrange.Therangeof Pimapineapplecactusextendsapproximately72 km (45mi) eastto westand80 km (50mi) northto south.Within this rangetherearelargeareasof unsuitablehabitat.Forexample,Pimapineapplecactusdoesnot occurin mountainousareasincludingtheSierrita,Baboquivari,SantaRita, Quinlan,Coyote,Atascesa,Pajarito,CerroColorado,SanLuis, andTumacacorimountains.On asmallerscale,thespeciesoccupieshabitatsthatarerelativelyflat andsparselyvegetated.Therefore,in rolling hillyhabitats,thespecieshasbeenfoundonly on flat hilltops andnot slopesordrainagesseparatingthehilltops. Thespeciesis not foundin riparianareassuchastheSantaCruz RivervalleyortheSonoitaCreekdrainageof Arizona.
It is difficult to estimatepopulationdensityaccuratelybecausethePimapineapplecactusis difficult to find inthefield (Mills 1991).Minimum densityestimatesfor areasneartheSierritaMountainsof Arizonarangefrom alowof 0.12plants/hectare(0.05 plants/acre)to ahigh of 0.54plants/hectare(0.22plants/acre)(Mills 1991).
Little is knownaboutthefire ecologyof thePimapineapplecactus.Studiesoftheresponseof succulentsto fire haveshownthat smallcactihavehighmortality rateswhendirectly exposedtohigh temperaturesfrom fires (Thomas1991,ThomasandGoodson1991).Studieshavealsoshownthatmortalitydoesnotnecessarilyoccurimmediatelyafterthefire butmaybedelayedfor ayear or morewhile theplant continuesto surviveusingstorednutrients(Thomas1991).NineteenPimapineapplecactiburnedin 1991 survivedoneyearin areasthathadexperiencedfiresof varyingheatintensity (D.Robinett,Soil ConservationService(SCS), in Iitt. 1992). TheBuenosAiresNationalWildlife Refuge(BANWR)conductscontrolledburningofintroducedgrassesto facilitaterecoveryefforts of theendangeredmaskedbobwhitequail (Colinusvirginianusridgwayi). To protectthePimapineapplecactusoccurringin thesesameareas,theBANWR surveystheentireareaproposedfor controlledburningfor thecactus.TheBANWR willminimize anyadverseeffectsof the
49876 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 183 / Thursday, September23, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
controlledburn to thecactiby reducingthefuel loadin theimmediatevicinityof anyPimapineapplecactusplantlocatedduringthesurveyprocess.TheBANWR plansto collectinformationaboutthesurvivorshipof thePimapineapplecactusin controlledburnsontherefugeto helpfill currentdatagaps.SomePima pineapplecactusburnedontherefugeduring1992 controlledburnswerestill alive a few monthslater(Tolley 1992). Scientiflc datawill helpguidefuturemanagementdecisionsregardingcontrolledburnsandtherecoveryof thePimapineapplecactusecosystem.
Grasslandsburnedwith somefrequencybeforeEuropeansettlement(Satireig9~.Speciesthatevolvedinecosystemswith frequentfire haveodaptationsthatallowpopulationstoperpetuateafter fire. TheFishandWildlife Service(Service)presumestheFimapineapplecactus,aresidentoffire-adaptedsemi-desertgrasslands,hasevolvedwith fire, but it is unknownwhatcircumstancesandstrategiesallowthespeciesto survivefire. Severalscientists(D. Gohmert,SCS,in litt.1992; WarrenandMcLaughlin 1992; S.McLaughlin,ArizonaStateUniversity,in lftt. 1992)havesuggestedthatthedirect effectsof Ereareavoidedby thespecies’occurrencein openinicrosites,foundwithin coarse-gained,patchyhabitatsof nativegrasslands.Theintroduction of Lehman’slovegrasshasconvertedsomeofthecoarse-gained,patchyhabitatsof nativegrasslandsintoa finer-rained,lesspatchyhabitat.Thelatterhabitatprovidesfewersitesfor theFimapineapplecactusto avoidandsurvivefire.
Federalgovernmentactionson thisspeciesbeganwith section12 of theAct(16U.S.C. 1531 etseq.)whichdirectedtheSecretaryof theSmithsonianInstitution to prepareareporton thoseplantsconsideredto beendangered,threatened,orextinct.This report,designatedasHousedocumentNo. 94—51, waspresentedto CongressonJanuary9, 1975. OnJuly 1, 1975,theServicepublishedanotice(40 FR27823)that formally acceptedtineSmithsonianreportasapetitionwithinthecontextof section4(c)(2), nowsection4(b)(3)(A), of theAct andof itsintention therebyto reviewthestatusofthoseplants.Coiyphanthescheerivar.robustispinawasincludedas“threatened”in the July 1. 1975,petition.
OnDecember15, 1980, the ServicepublishedarevisedNoticeof ReviewforNativePlants in the Federal Register(45FR 82480);Corypho.nthascheerivar.robustispinawasincludedin thatnoticeasa CategoryI candidatespecies.
CategoryI speciesarethosefor whichtheServicepresentlyhassufficientinformation to support thedeterminationthat listing the speciesasthreatenedorendangeredisbiologicallyappropriate,but precludedby listingactionsof higher priority. Both Noticesof Reviewfor Native Plantspublishedsincethe 1980version,the1985notice(50FR 39526)andthe 1990notice(55FR 6184),includedCorypha.nthascheerivar. robustispinain Category1.
Section4(b)(3)(B)of the Act, requirestheSecretaryto makecertainfindingson pendingpetitions within 12 monthsof their receipt.Section2(b)(1)ofthe1982 amendmentsto theAct furtherrequiresthatall petitionspendingonOctober13, 1982,be treatedashavingbeennewlysubmittedon thatdate.Becausethe 1975Smithsonianreportwasacceptedasapetition, all of thetaxacontainedtherein,includingCoryphanthascheerivar, robustispina,were treatedasbeingnewly petitionedon October 13, 1982. In eachyearfrom1983through1991,theServicefoundthatCor1phantha scheerivar.robustispinastill merited categoryIcandidate statusand that additionaldataon vulnerabilityandthreatswerestill beinggathered.This final ruleconstitutesthefinal finding for thepetitionedaction.
Summaryof CommentsandRecommendations
In the April 20, 1992, proposedrule(57 FR 14374),all interestedpartieswererequestedto submitfactualreportsor information that might contribute tothe developmentof a final rule.Appropriatestateagencies,countygovernments,Federalagencies,scientific organizations,andotherinterestedparties were contactedandrequestedto comment.Newspapernoticeswerepublished in theArizonaDaily Starandthe Tucson Citizen onMay 11, 1992, inviting generalpubliccomment.Four commentletterswerereceivedandarediscussedbelow.Commentswere submitted by twoFederal agencies,oneprivateorganization,andone individual. Twocommentorssupportedtheproposalalthoughoneof thesecommentorsrecommendedthatadditionalsurveyingbe doneprior to or concurrentwithlisting, onecommentopposedtheproposal,andonecommentprovidedinformation, but took no position on theproposal.
Commentsreceivedduring thecommentperiodare coveredin thefollowing summary. Commentsof asimilar natureor point aregroupedintoa numberof generalissues.These
issues,andtheService’sresponsetoeach,arediscussedbelow.
Issue1:ThëPitnapineappiecactusdoesnot needtheprotectionof theActbecausetheArizonaNativePlantLawprovidessufficientprotection.
Resaonse:TheArizonaNativePlantLaw extendssomeprotectiontoArizona’s nativeplants,but doesnotprotectthespeciesin itsecosystem(seeFactorD of’ ‘Summaryof FactorsAffecting theSpecies”).Habitatoccupiedby speciesprotectedundertheNativePlant Law can be destroyedbyprivatelandownersandFederalandstategovernmentagenciesif theyprovideadvancenoticeto theArizonaDepartmentof Agriculture (ADA).Federaliisting will provideadditionalprotectionto thespeciesthroughsection7 of theAct, which requiresFederalagenciesto ccnsultwith theServicewhenanyactionauthorized,funded,orcarriedout by anagencymayaffectalistedspecies.TheAct will alsoofferprotectionagainstillegal intematioronlandinterstatecommercenot providedby theArizona NativePlantLaw.
Issue2: Additional surveysarerecommendedto furtherunderstandtherangeanddistribution ofthis species.
Response:Although all potentialhabitatfor thePimapineapplecactushasnot beensurveyed,theServicebelievesthattherangeof this speciesissufficientlydefined,andtheabundance,distribution,andthreatssufficientlyunderstoodto determinethat listing thisspeciesis warranted.In additionto theoriginalstatus report(Phillips et al.1981)andtheecologicalinformationprovidedby Mills (1991), therehavebeen manysurveysthroughouttherangeof this speciesthatwere done forFederalprojectclearances(e.g.,Reichenbacher1984; C. Raming,SWCAEnvironmentalConsultants,in litt. 1992;F.W. Reichenbacher& Associates1985and 1988).Portionsof theSanXavierDistrict of theTohono O’odharnIndianReservationhave beenthoroughlysurveyed(F.W.Reichenbacher&Associates1985; D. Laush,BR,pers.comm.1992)andthespecieshasbeenlocatedthere. All localities known totheServiceareenteredin theHeritageData Base,housedattheArizonaGameandFishDepartment,Phoenix.
After the proposedrule to list thePimapineapple cactuswaspublished,BR fundedastudy to definetherangeof this speciesfEES1992).Surveyorstargetedspecificareasin PimaandSantaCruz Counties,Arizona, todeterminethe northern, eastern,andwesternboundaries of the species’range. Extensivesurveysidentifiedtheseboundarieswith accuracy.
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 183 / Thursday, September 23, 1993 I Rules and Regulations 49ii7
The westernboundaryof therangewasof particularinterestto theServiceandto commentorsbecauseits locationwasuncertain.Severalbotanistshadspeculatedthe rangeof thespeciesextendedwest onto theTohonoO’odhamReser~’ationwherehistoricspecimenshadbeentakenfrom thesouthernpartof theBaboquivariMountains.TheBureauof IndianAffairs(BIA) (CharlesSullivan,BIA, PapagoAgency,pers.comm.1992)andtheSCSreportedthespecieshasbeenseenonthewesternslopesof theBaboquivariMountainsCD. Gobmert,in litt. 1992).During thesummerandfall of 1992,EES (1992)surveyedsomeareason thewesternslopesof theBaboquivariMountainsanddid not find the species.The BIA later confirmed(Sullivan,pars.comm.1992)their Pimapineapplecactussitingshadbeenmisidentifications.In summary,currentlyavailableinformation doesnotincludeverified locationsof thePirnapineapplecactuson thewesternslopesof theBaboquiv.iriMountains.However,theServiceagreesadditionalsurveysshouldbe consideredasarecoveryactionfor thespecies.
Issue3. The proposedrulediscussesthepotentialnegativeeffectsoflivestockgrazing,but somecommentorsbelievelivestockgrazingmaybenefitthePimapineapplecactusby increasingtheamountof habitatanddecreasingthefire danger.
Response:Pasturesusedby livestockwill nave a lower probability of carryingawildfire or controlledburnbecauseofinsufficientor discontinuousdistributionof fine fuels.Theassumptionthat adecreasedfirefrequencyor not burningat all benefitsthePimapineapplecactusanditsecosystempresumesthat fire isdetrimentalto thespeciesandecosystem.The Servicehasno datatosupportthis assumption.Scientificexperimentationwill needto beperformedbeforeselectingoneor moremanagementstrategiesthatwill benefittheecosystem.
Issue4: Theintroductionof Lehman’slovegrassdid not adverselyalterthehabitatbecauseit wasoriginally agrassland,burned frequently, andprobablydid not havethePimapineapplecactus.
Response:ThePima pineapplecactuscouldhaveoccurredin nativegrasslandsexperiencingfrequentfiresif,aspreviouslymentioned,it grewinopenmicrositesthatescapedthedirecteifectsof thefire. It is believedtheestablishmentof Lthman’slovegrassconvertedpatchy, coarse-grainednativegrasslandsinto monotypicstandswithalmost no structuraldiversity CD.
Gohmert,SCS, in Iitt. 1992;WarrenandMcLaughlin 1992; S. McLaughlin,ArizonaStateUniversity, in lilt. 1992).Fire functionsdifferentlyin thetwotypesof grasslands.PlantspeciessuchasthePimapineapplecactusthatevolvedin fire-influencedecosystemsmay have developedmechanismsforsurviving fires that would not beeffectivewhereLehman’slovegrassstandshavereplacednativegrasses.Ecosystemmanagementfor the Pimapineapplecactusmayentailmanagingfor nativegrassesratherthan ecosystemsdominatedby Lehman’slovegrassorother non-native plants.
Summaryof FactorsAffecting theSpecies
After thorough review andconsideration of all informationavailable,the Servicehas determinedthat Coryphanthascheerivar.robustispinashouldbeclassifiedasanendangeredspecies.Proceduresfoundat section4(a)(1)of theAct andregulations(50 GFRpart424)promulgatedto implementthelistingprovisionsof theActwere followed. Aspeciesmaybe determinedto beanendangeredor threatened spadesdue tooneor more of thefive factorsdescribedin section4(a)(1).Thesefactorsandtheir applicationto Coxyphanthascheeri(Kuntze)L. Benson var. robustispina(Schott)L. Benson(Pimapineapplecactus)are as follows:
A. The Presentor ThreatenedDestruction, Modification, orCurtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Construction associatedwith arapidly growing humanpopulation isoccurringthroughouttherangeof thespeciesandis the most significantcauseof habitat loss andfragmentation.Perhaps75 percentof therangeof thespeciesis affectedby this threat. Tucsonis a majorcity at thenorthernboundaryof thespecies’range,GreenValley is alarge community m the centerof therange,andNogales.Arizona, occursnearthesouthernpartof its range.Additional developmentwithLi andbetweenthedenselypopulatedareasisoccurringeveryyear.Homebuilding,commercialdevelopment,roadconstructionandmaintenance,andutility corridor constructionaresomeofthe activitiesthat have causedandcontinue to causehabitat lossandfragmentation.Habitatloss due to thesefactorswill likely accelerateastheareabecomesanimportanttradecorridorbetweenMexicoandthe United States.
Mining hasalsoresultedin the lossofhundredsof acresof potential habitatthroughout therangeof this species.Onecopper mine andrelated facilities
nearGreenValley coverthousandsofacresof formerly potent~a1habitat.Whenthis mine wasexpandedin theearly1980’s,botanistsfamiliar with thisspeciesnotedthatmanyplantswere lostbecausethey were not salvagedor weresalvagedbutnot usedfor conservationpurposes.Although the mine nearGreenValley is by farthe largestmine, manyothersmallminesoccurthroughouttherangeof this species.Actions associatedwith mineralextraction,suchasconstructingroads, tailings piles,andsettling or leachingponds, can alsocontributeto habitatloss. Habitatlossdueto mining and associatedactivitiesis expectedto continue or increasethroughouttherangeof this species.
Theentireundevelopedpartof therangeof this speciesis usedforlivestockgrazing,asit has beenfor overa century.Severeovergrazingduringthemid- to late1800’s(Bahre1991)andsomecontinuinglivestockgrazingpracticesmayhavesignificantly alteredthe ecosystem.Someeffectsofovergrazinginclude:Erosion;changesinhydrologyandmicroclimate;invasionofweedyexoticplant species;shiftsindensity,relativeabundance,andvigorof nativespecies;andincreasesinwoodyperennials.Overgrazingin someareascontinuestoday. Somemodernrangemanagementpractices,suchasimprinting, chaining,ripping, andseedingof exoticgrasses,havecontributed to the modification or lossof habitat andlorloss of plants.Mills(Tucson,Arizona,pars.comm.1991)has seendamageto Pirnapineapplecactithatmayhavebeencausedbylivestock trampling. At theturn of thecentury,hay wasmechanicallyharvestedfrom the SantaRitaExperimental Rangeto provide livestockfeedin Tucson.The mechanicalharvestingmay haveadverselyaffectedPima pineapplecactusandits habitat.
Habitatfor thePimapineapplecactusmay have occurredin severalareasalong the Santa Cruz River southofTucson that are now undercultivation.Habitat for thePimapineapplecactusisfoundin thevicinity of iheseorchardsand fields.
Theintroductionof non-nativespecieshasmodifiedmanysouthernArizonaecosystems.Up to 75 percentofPima pineapplecactushabitathasbeensignificantly alteredby the introductionof Lehman’slovegrass,an aggressiveexoticintroducedto providecattleforageandsoil stabilization.Lehman’slovegrassoutcompetesnativegrasses,andmonotypicstandsof it cover largeareasof mid-elevation southernArizona. The lack of structuralandnative speciesdiversityandcompetitionfor light andnutrientsin thenon-native
49878 Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 183 / Thursday, September 23, 1993 I Rules and Regulations
-‘ grasslandhabitatsmayhaveadverselyaffectedthePimapineapplecactus.Schismus barbatus(Mediterraneangrass)is anothersuccessfulexoticgrasscommonin Sonorandesert-scrub!grasslandtransition habitats.Densestandsof Mediterraneangrassin desert-scrubhabitatscontributedense,finefuelsthatarereadily flammableandcarry fires in fire-intoleranthabitat.Lehman’slovegrassandMediterraneangrassaretwo of manynon-nativespeciesthatmayhavenegativelyaffectedthenaturalecosystem.Theintroduction of othernon-nativeplantspeciesto thesouthwesternUnitedStatesis continuing.Theseintroductionscarrywith them thepotentialfor additionalnegativeimpacts.
Off-roadvehicleuseis not currentlyconsidereda seriousproblemto thespecies,but doescontributeto habitatloss anddegradationin localizedareaswithin the species’range.
B. Overutiiizationfor Commercial,Recreational,Scientific,or EducationalPurposes
Illegal collectionhasbeendocumentedon num~’ousoccasionsthroughouttherangeof this species.Ononeoccasion,surveysfor thePimapineapplecactuswereconductedandplantlocationsmapped.Onasubsequentvisit, botanistsdiscoveredthat plantsweremissingfrom mappedlocationsandonly holesin thegroundremained.In anotherincident, surveysfor thespecieswereconductedfor aroadprolectnearTucson.Severalplantsweretakenaftersurveyorsleft thesite.Again, holesindicatedtheplantswereremoved.An inspectorfor theADAphotographedamarkedplant west ofTucsonbeforeit wasremoved(W.Kendall,ADA, in litt. 1990). The Servicehasreceivedotherreportsof plantcollectingthatarelessverifiable thanthethreeincidentsreportedabove.Someof theseincidentsindicatecollectorsarespecificallyinterestedinCoryphanthascheerivar. robustispina,while at othertimesit appearsthecollectorsarejust takingall cactiin ageneralarea.Hobbyistsandcommercialcollectorsarethetwo groupsmost likelyto collectthis species.
C. DiseaseandPredation
Someplantsappearedto be damagedby the larvalstageof Phycitidaesp., alepidopteran (Phillips at a]. 1981).Theeffects of this damageon populationstability areunknown.
D. TheInadequacyof ExistingRegulatoryMechanisms
TheArizonaNativePlantLawprotectsCoryphanthascheerivar.robustispinaas a “Highly SafeguardedSpecies.”To legally collect this cactuson public or privatelandsin Arizona, acollectormustobtain apermit from theADA. Permitsmaybe issuedforscientificandeducationalpurposesonly. However,privatelandownersandFederalandStatepublic agenciesmayclear landanddestroyhabitataftergiving ADA sufficientnoticeto allow forplant salvage.DespitetheprotectionsoftheArizona NativePlantLaw, illegalcollectingcontinuesto occur.Enforcementis difficult dueto therelativelylargerangeof this species,theremotenatureof someof its habitat,andtherelativelyfew law enforcementagentsavailableto coverthis area.EndangeredSpeciesAct protectionmaypresenta deterrentto illegal collectorsandwould increasethenumberofagentshaving enforcementauthority.
E. OtherNaturalor ManmadeFactorsAffectingIts ContinuedExistence
TheServiceis not awareof anyotherfactorsaffectingthis species.
The Servicehascarefullyassessedthebestscientificandcommercialinformation available regarding the past.present.andfuturethreatsfacedby thisspeciesin determiningto makethis rulefinal. Basedon this evaluation,thepreferredactionis to list Coryphanthascheerivar.robustispinuasendangered.With habitatloss anddegradationcontinuing,thespecieswarrantsprotection under the Act. Endangeredstatus seemsappropriate becauseof theamountof habitatalreadylost, theacceleratinghabitatlossanddegradation due to the rapidly growinghumanpopulationwithin therangeofthis plant,andthecurrentinadequacyof legalprotectionaffordedthe species.Critical habitatis notbeingdesignatedfor thereasonsdiscussedbelow.
Critical Habitat
Section4(a)(3)of theAct requires,tothemaximumextentprudentanddeterminable,thattheSecretarydesignatecritical habitatatthe time aspeciesis determinedto be endangeredor threatened.Pursuantto 50 CFR424.12(a)(1),a designationof criticalhabitatis not prudentwhenoneorbothof thefollowing situationsexist: (i) Thespeciesis threatenedby taking or otherhumanactivity, andidentificationofcritical habitatcanbeexpectedtoincreasethedegreeof suchthreatto thespecies,or (ii) Suchdesignationofcritical habitat would not be beneficial
to the species.The Servicefinds thatdesignationof critical habitat is notpresentlyprudent-fO~this species.AsdiscussedunderFactorB in the“Summaryof FactorsAffecting theSpecies”sectionof this rule,Coryphanthascheerivar.robustispina isthreatenedby taking,an activitydifficult to preventandonly regulatedby the Act with respectto plantsincasesof: (1) Removalandreductiontopossessionof listedplantsfrom landsunderFederaljurisdiction, or theirmaliciousdamageor destructiononsuchlands;and(2) removal,cutting.diggingup, or damagingor destravinginknowingviolation of any stE.te law orregulation,including statecri~ninaltrespasslaw. Suchprovisionsaredifficult to enforce,andpublicationofcritical habitatdescriptionsandmapswould makeCoryphanthascheerivar.robustispinamorevulnerableandincreaseenforcementproblems.PertinentFederal,state,andlocalgovernmentagencieswerenotifiedoftheproposedlisting of this species.Otherinterestedpartieswerenotifiedeitherby mail or by public noticeinlocal newspapers.Protectionof thisspecies’habitatwill be addressedthroughtherecoveryprocessandthroughthesection7 jeopardystandard.Therefore,theServicehasdeterminedthat it is not prudentto determinecritical habitatfor Coryphanthascheei-ivar. robustispina.
Available Conservation MeasuresConservationmeasuresprovidedto
specieslistedas endangeredorthreatenedundertheAct includerecognition,identificationandimplementationof recoveryactions,requirementsfor Federalprotection,andprohibitionsagainstcertainpractices.Recognitionthroughlisting encouragesandresultsin conservationactionsbyFederal,state,andprivateagencies,groups,andindividuals. TheActprovidesfor possibleland acquisitionandcooperationwith thestatesandauthorizesrecoveryplansfor all listedspecies.The protectionrequiredofFederal agenciesandtheprohibitionsagainstcertainactivities involving listedplants arediscussed,in part,below.
Section7(a) of theAct, as amended,requiresFederalagenciesto evaluatetheir actionswith respectto anyspeciesthat is proposedor listedasendangeredor threatenedandwith respectto itscritical habitatif anyis beingdesignated.Regulationsimplementingthis interagencycooperationprovisionof theActarecodified at 50 CFR part402. Section7(a)(2) requires Federalagenciesto ensurethatactivities theyauthorize,fund,or carryout arenot
Federal Register I Vol. 58,No. 183/ Thursday, September23, 1993 I Rules andRegulations 49C~
likely to jeopardizethecontinuedexistenceof alisted speciesor todestroyor adverselymodify its criticalhabitat.If aFederalactionmay affectalistedspeciesor its critical habitat,theresponsibleFederalagencymustenterinto formalconsultationwith theService.
This speciesoccurson Federal landsmanagedby theBureauof LandManagement,Safford District; U.S.ForestService,CoronadoNationalForest;FishandWildlife Service,BuenosAires NationalWildlife Refuge;andpossiblywithin proposedprojectareasof theBureauof Reclamation.Federalactivities on theselandsthatcouldimpact Coryphanthascheerivar.robustispinainclude,but arenot limitedto, proposedwaterstorageprojects,livestockgrazingandrangemanagementpractices,roadandutility corridorconstniction,mining permitsandmitigation, controlledbums,andrecreationplanning.
TheAct andits implementingregulationsfound at50 CFR 17.61,17.62,and17.63 set forth a seriesofgeneralprohibitionsandexceptionsthatapplyto all endangeredplants.Allprohibitionsofsection9(a)(2)of theAct,implementedby 50 Q~R17.61,apply.Theseprohibitions,in part,makeitillegal for anypersonsubjectto thejurisdiction of the United Statestoimport or export, transportin interstateor foreign commercein the courseofacommercialactivity, sell oroffer for salethis speciesin interstateor foreigncommerce,or to removeandreducetopossessionthespeciesfrom areasunderFederaljurisdiction. In addition, forendangeredplants,the 1988amendments(Pub. L. 100—478)to theAct prohibit themaliciousdamageor
destructionon Federal lands andtheremoval,cutting,diggingup, ordamagingor destroying of endangeredplantsin knowingviolation of anystatelaw or regulation,includingstatecriminaltrespasslaw. Certainexceptionsapplyto agentsoftheServiceandstateconservationagencies.TheActand50 CFR17.62 and17.63alsoprovidefor theissuanceofpermitsto carryout otherwiseprohibitedactivities involving endangeredspeciesundercertaincircumstances.
It is anticipatedthat few tradepermitswouldeverbesoughtor issuedbecausethespeciesis notcommonin cultivationor in thewild. Requestsfor copiesof theregulationson listedplantsandinquiries regardingprohibitions andpermits may beaddressedto the Officeof ManagementAuthority, U.S. FishandWildlife Service,4401 NorthFairfaxDrive, room420C,Arlington, Virginia22203(Telephone703/358—2104,FAX703/358—2281).
On July 1, 1975, Coryphanthascheerivar. robustispinawas includedinAppendixII of the ConventiononInternationalTradein EndangeredSpeciesof Wild Fauna andFlora(CiTES).The effectof this action is thata permit for exportis required from thecountryof origin. Commercialtradeisallowedbut only afterthe country ofexporthasdetermined it will not harmthewild populations.Internationalmovementof this speciesis minimal.
National EnvironmentalPolicy ActThe Fish andWildlife Servicehas
determinedthat anEnvironmentalAssessment,as defined under theauthorityof theNational EnvironmentalPolicy Act of 1969,neednot bepreparedin connectionwith regulations
adoptedpursuantto section4(a) of theEndangeredSpeciesActof 1973,asamended.A ~foticeoutlining theService’s reasonsfor this determinationwaspublishedin theFederalRegisteron October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
ReferencesCited
A completelist of all referencescitedherein,aswell as others,is availableuponrequestfromtheArizonaEcologicalServicesOffice (SeeADDRESSES section).
Author
Theprimaryauthorof this final rule
is SueRutman(SeeADDRESSES).List of Subjects in 50 CFRPart 17
Endangeredandthreatenedspecies,Exports,Imports,Reportingandrecordkeepingrequirements,andTransportation.
RegulationPromulgation
Accordingly, part17, subchapterB ofchapter I, title 50 of the Codeof FederalRegulations,Is amendedas set forthbelow:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part17continuesto 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,unlessotherwisenoted.
2. Amend§17.12(h)by addingthefollowing, in alphabeticalorderunderCactaceae,to the List of EndangeredandThreatenedPlantsto readasfollows:
§17.12 Endangeredandthreatenedplants.* * * a *
SpeciesHistoric range Status When listed ~itat
s~i~~IesScientific name Commonname
Cactaceae—Cactusfamily
Coryphantha schee,~var. Pimapineapplecactus U.S.A. (AZ); Mexico (So- E 515 NA NArobustispina. flora).
49880 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 183 / Thursday,September23, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
Dated:August12, 1993.RichardN. Smith,ActingDirector, Fish andWildlifeService.IFR Doc. 93—23161Filed9—22—93; 8:45 am~BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
50 CFR Part 17RIN 1018-AB82
Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Listing of the Snake RiverSpringlSummer Chinook Salmon andthe Snake River Fall Chinook Salmonas Threatened Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.AC11ON: Final rule.
SUMMARY: TheServiceis addingtheSnakeRiver spring/summerchinooksalmon (Oncorhynchustsha~4.ytscho)andtheSnakeRiverfall chinooksalmonto theList of EndangeredandThreatenedWildlife. This measure,requiredby theEndangeredSpeciesActof 1973 (Act), reflectsa determination ofthreatenedstatusfor both species,asdefinedundertheAct, by theNationalMarineFisheriesService,whichhasjurisdiction for the SnakeRiver spring/summerchinooksalmonandtheSnakeRiverfall chinooksalmon.This ruleimplementsFederalprotectionprovidedby theAct for theseSnakeRiverspecies.EFFECTiVE DATE: September23, 1993,FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.JainieRappaportClark, Chief, Divisionof EndangeredSpecies,U.S. FishandWildlife Service,4401N. FairfaxDrive,Mail Stop452,Arlington, Virginia22203(703/358—2171).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under theEndangeredSpeciesAct (16 U.S.C.1531et seq.),and in accordancewithReorganizationPlanNo. 4 of 1970, theNational MarineFisheriesServices(NMFS),National OceanicandAtmospheric Administration,Departmentof Commerce,is responsiblefor the chinook salmon. Under section4(a)(2)of the Act, NMFS must decidewhetheraspeciesunderits jurisdictionshould be classifiedas endangeredorthreatened.TheFishandWildlifeService(FWS) is responsiblefor theactualaddition of aspeciesto the Listof Endangeredand Threatened Wildlifein 50 CFR 17.11(h).
NMFS published its determination ofthreatenedstatusfor the Snake Riverspring/summer chinook salmonandtheSnakeRiver fall chinook salmononApril 22, 1992 (57FR 14653—14663).Accordingly, theFWSis addingtheSnakeRiver spring/summer chinooksalmonandSnakeRiver fall chinooksalmonas threatenedspeciesto the ListofEndangeredandThreatenedWildlife.Becausethis actionof the FWSisnondiscretionary,andin view of thepublic commentperiodprovidedbyNMFS on the proposedlisting (June27,1991; 56 FR29542and29547),the FWSfinds that goodcauseexiststo omit thenoticeandpublic commentproceduresof 5 U.S.C. 553(b)andto makethisactioneffectiveupon publication of thisdocument.
National Environmental Policy ActThe Fish andWildlife Servicehas
determinedthatanEnvironmentalAssessment,as defined under theauthorityof theNationalEnvironmental
Policy Act of 1969,neednot bepreparedin connectionwith regulationsadoptedpursuantto section4(a) of theEndangeredSpeciesAct of 1973, asamended.A noticeoutliningtheService’sreasonsfor this determinationwaspublishedin theFederalRegisteron October25, 1983 (48FR 49244).
List of Subjects in 50 CFRPart 17
Endangered andthreatenedspecies,Export, Import.Reportingandrecordkeepingrequirements,andTransportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, part17, subchapterB ofchapterI, title 50 of theCodeof FederalRegulations.is amendedassetforthbelow:
PART 17—fAMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17continuesto readasfollows:
Authority: 16U.S.C. 1361—1407;16 U.S.C.1531—1544;16U.S.C.4201—4245;Pub. L. 99—625,100 Stat. 3500,unlessotherwisenoted.
2. Section17.11(h) is amendedbyremovingtheentry for “Salmon,chinook”, underFISHES,in theList ofEndangeredandThreatenedWildlifeandaddingthefollowing in alphabeticalorder to read as follows:
§17.11 Endangered and threatenedwl~diIf..* * * * *
SpeciesHistoric Vertebratepopulationwhereen~range dangeredor threatened Status Whenlisted Critical habi-tat
SpecialrulesCommonname Scientific name
Fishes:
Salmon,chinook Oncothyrichus North Pacthctsha~ytscha. Basin from
U.S.A. (CA) toJapan.
Do do do
SacramentoR. (U.S.A.: CA) win- Iterrun, whereverfound.
Snake R. (U.S.A.: ID, OR, WA) T(mainstem and the followingeubbasins: Tucannon R.,Grande RondeR., ImnahaR.,and Salmon R.) spring/summerrun, natural population(s),whereverfound.
383E,407 226.21 227.21
516 NA 227.21
![ENDANGERING THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: NATIONAL ... Quaresimo.pdf · 2009] Endangering the Endangered Species Act 1149 endangered species ever enacted by any nation.”34 Nonetheless,](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/5ffe895cc2e9be1c405b521d/endangering-the-endangered-species-act-national-quaresimopdf-2009-endangering.jpg)
