2005 Federal Register, 70 FR 5460; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

[Federal Register: February 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5460-5463]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02fe05-79]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Review of
Lesser Long-nosed Bat, Black-capped Vireo, Yuma Clapper Rail, Pima
Pineapple Cactus, Gypsum Wild-Buckwheat, Mesa Verde Cactus, and Zuni
Fleabane

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of review.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces a 5-
year review of the lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae
yerbabuenae), the black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), the Yuma
clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis), Pima pineapple cactus
(Coryphantha sheeri var. robustispina), gypsum wild-buckwheat (Erigonum
gypsophilum), Mesa Verde cactus (Sclerocactus mesae-verde), and Zuni
fleabane (Erigeron rhizomatus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act). The purpose of reviews conducted under this section of the Act
is to ensure that the classification of species as threatened or
endangered on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
(50 CFR 17.12) is accurate. The 5-year review is an assessment of the
best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the
review.

DATES: To allow adequate time to conduct this review, information
submitted for our consideration must be received on or before May 3,
2005. However, we will continue to accept new information about any
listed species at any time.

ADDRESSES: Information submitted on these species should be sent to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the following addresses. Information
received in response to this notice of review will be available for
public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the
same addresses.
Information regarding the lesser long-nosed bat, Yuma clapper rail,
and Pima pineapple cactus should be sent to the Field Supervisor,
Attention 5-year Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103,
Phoenix, AZ 85021.
Information regarding the black-capped vireo should be sent to the
Field Supervisor, Attention 5-year Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, 711 Stadium Drive, Suite 252, Arlington,
TX 76011.
Information regarding gypsum wild-buckwheat, Mesa verde cactus, and
Zuni fleabane should be sent to the Field Supervisor, Attention 5-year
Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services
Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the lesser long-nosed bat, contact
Scott Richardson at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona
Ecological Services Tucson Sub-Office, 201 North Bonita, Suite 141,
Tucson, AZ 84745, 520-670-6150 x 242, scott_richardson@fws.gov. For
the Pima pineapple cactus, contact Mima Falk at Tucson Sub-Office
address above, 520-670-6150 x 225, mima_falk@fws.gov. For the black-
capped vireo, contact Omar Bocanegra at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services Field Office, 711 Stadium Drive,
Arlington, TX 76011, 817-277-1100, omar_bocanegra@fws.gov. For the
Yuma clapper rail, contact Lesley Fitzpatrick at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 West
Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ, 85021, 602-242-0210 x 236,
lesley_fitzpatrick@fws.gov. For the gypsum wild-buckwheat, Mesa Verde
cactus, and Zuni fleabane, contact Nancy Baczek at the New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road, NE, Albuquerque, NM
87113, 505-761-4711, nancy_baczek@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Why Is a 5-Year Review Conducted?

Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years.
We are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B) and the provisions of subsections
(a) and (b), to determine, on the basis of such a review, whether or
not any species should be removed from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (delisted), or reclassified from
endangered to threatened (downlisted) , or from threatened to
endangered (uplisted). The 5-year review is an assessment of the best
scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review.
Therefore, we are requesting submission of any new information (best
scientific and commercial data) on the following species since their
original listings as either endangered (lesser long-nosed bat, black-
capped vireo, Yuma clapper rail, and Pima pineapple cactus) or
threatened (gypsum wild-buckwheat, Mesa Verde cactus, and Zuni
fleabane).

[[Page 5461]]

If the present classification of any of these species is not consistent
with the best scientific and commercial information available, the
Service will recommend whether or not a change is warranted in the
Federal classification of that species. Any change in Federal
classification would require a separate final rule-making process.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice
in the Federal Register announcing those species currently under active
review. This notice announces our active review of the lesser long-
nosed bat, black-capped vireo, Yuma clapper rail, Pima pineapple
cactus, gypsum wild-buckwheat, Mesa Verde cactus, and Zuni fleabane.

What Information Is Considered in the Review?

A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time
of the review. These reviews will consider the best scientific and
commercial data that has become available since the current listing
determination or most recent status review of each species, such as:
A. Species biology, including but not limited to population trends,
distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
B. Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount,
distribution, and suitability;
C. Conservation measures that have been implemented to benefit the
species;
D. Threat status and trends (see five factors under heading ``How
do we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened?''); and
E. Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not
limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of
erroneous information contained in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and improved analytical methods.

Specific Information Requested for the Lesser Long-Nosed Bat

We are especially interested in the results of survey and
monitoring efforts that provide a better understanding of current
population numbers and the status, security, and location of roost
sites in the U.S. and Mexico. We also specifically request any recent
information regarding the impacts of agave plant harvest and/or
livestock grazing on the numbers and distribution of agaves and
associated impacts on forage availability for lesser long-nosed bats.

Specific Information Requested for the Black-Capped Vireo

We are especially interested in the following information: (1)
Distribution of populations and suitable habitat across the breeding
range and the degree of protection afforded these populations and
habitat; (2) evaluation of the viability of breeding populations; (3)
the distribution of wintering populations and evaluation of the extent
and security of wintering habitat in Mexico; and (4) short- and long-
term effects of various management activities on vireo populations and
breeding habitat, including brown-headed cowbird control, brush
management, prescribed fire, and livestock grazing.

Specific Information Requested for the Yuma Clapper Rail

We specifically request information regarding the distribution of
listed populations and evaluation of the degree of habitat protection
for each population, and information regarding management plans and
techniques for maintaining clapper rail habitat. We also are
particularly interested in recent information regarding the effects of
selenium on clapper rail reproductive success.

Special Consideration of a Taxonomic Question Regarding the Pima
Pineapple Cactus

Two studies of character variation within the species Coryphantha
robustispina have recently become available to us: One was recently
published by Schmalzel et al. (2004), and the other is a report by
Baker (2004) of Arizona State University regarding a study carried out
under our cooperative agreement with the Arizona Department of
Agriculture under section 6 of the Endangered Species Act. These two
studies reach different conclusions concerning the taxonomic validity
of the Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina)).
We have carefully reviewed both reports and have identified several
technical issues on which we are particularly soliciting review and
comment by knowledgeable experts during this status review of the Pima
pineapple cactus.
Schmalzel et al. (2004) concluded that their data suggest that the
Pima pineapple cactus, a listed variety of C. robustispina (based on
Taylor (1998) nomenclature), is not a valid taxonomic entity, and
therefore does not meet the definition of ``species'' under the Act.
They based this conclusion on (1) clinal variation in certain
characters from west to east, and (2) overlap in characters between the
populations of C. robustispina.
The term ``clinal'' comes from ``cline,'' which is a gradation in
measurable characters (Huxley 1938). The existence of clinal patterns
in characters within a species can be compatible with recognition of
taxa (named units) below the level of species (infra-specific taxa).
Julian Huxley (1938) first proposed the term ``cline'' as ``an
auxiliary taxonomic principle,'' and observed that clines could be
intragroup, or within a population, or intergroup, as in ``connecting
the mean values of the subspecies of a polytypic species.'' The plant
varieties recognized as valid for listing under the ESA are
biologically equivalent to subspecies (USFWS 1978). We seek comment and
additional information regarding the conclusions of Schmalzel et al.
(2004) with regard to clinal variation in C. robustispina.
Regarding overlap in characters, Schmalzel et al. interpret their
principle components analysis as demonstrating overlap in geographic
groups of C. robustispina, and suggest this overlap is further evidence
that the varieties are not distinct. The morphometric analysis provided
by Schmalzel et al. (2004) did not include four of the characters (stem
branching and three floral characters) identified by Benson (1982) for
distinguishing varieties of C. robustispina, although a general
narrative discussion of those characters was provided. We seek comment
on their conclusions with regard to character overlap and the
implications of not including the characters identified by Benson
(1982) in the analysis.
Baker (2004) assessed character variation in C. robustispina with
respect to the three recognized varieties, including the Pima pineapple
cactus. Baker (2004) included stem branching in his study, but did not
include floral characters. Baker's ongoing research will address floral
characters, to be completed in 2005. To date, Baker has found
statistically significant differences among the named varieties for
most characters, although Pima pineapple cactus did not significantly
differ from the variety that was closest geographically in two of the
characters (radial spine length and central spine curvature) used by
Benson (1982) to distinguish varieties of C. robustispina.
The plots of Baker's (2004) principal components analysis show
points corresponding to the Pima pineapple cactus to be largely
separate from, but having some overlap with, points representing
Coryphantha robustispina uncinata, the variety geographically

[[Page 5462]]

nearest to the Pima pineapple cactus. The amount of overlap appears to
be at least grossly comparable to the corresponding amount in Fig. 10
of Schmalzel et al. (2004). Baker's (2004) discriminant function
analysis showed that the character data correctly identified
individuals of C. robustispina from Pima and Santa Cruz Counties,
Arizona, as Pima pineapple cactus 92.3 percent of the time. Baker
(2004) concluded that, based on the allopatry (disjunct geographic
distributions) and observed morphological separation of the varieties,
all three varieties of C. robustispina are taxonomically valid.
Stebbins (1950 provided the following definition for the term
subspecies: ``The subspecies or geographic variety is a series of
populations having certain morphological and physiological
characteristics in common, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the
range of the species or a series of similar ecological habitats, and
differing in several characteristics from typical members of other
subspecies, although connected with one or more of them by series of
intergrading forms.'' Stuessy's (1990) general standards for
recognition of plant subspecies or varieties are consistent with
Stebbins' definition. Stuessy states that plant subspecies are largely
allopatric (occupying geographically different areas), but allows for
some degree of contact, hybridization, and overlap.
The taxonomic question that we must evaluate in the present status
review is whether the observed amount of overlap in characters between
Pima pineapple cactus and other varieties of C. robustispina is
acceptable for continued recognition of the Pima pineapple cactus as a
valid taxon. It appears to us that the two studies summarized in this
notice generally agree in the gross amount of overlap (although it was
not quantified by Schmalzel et al. 2004) but disagree in the taxonomic
significance of that overlap.
We are soliciting review and comment on any issue related to the
listed status of the Pima pineapple cactus in order to determine
whether its continued listing under the Act is justified. If the best
available scientific and commercial information indicates that the Pima
pineapple cactus is not a valid taxon, we will develop a proposal to
remove it from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. It is therefore important that we have a full understanding of
current concepts and standards of plant taxonomy as they apply to the
taxonomic standing of the Pima pineapple cactus to ensure that our
decision is based on the best available information. Other issues on
which we would like comment are the use of herbarium specimens for this
type of work, and the appropriate sample size for evaluating
differences within populations and between varieties. Given the
different taxonomic conclusions of the two recent studies, we are
particularly soliciting review and comment by knowledgeable experts in
multivariate methods and plant taxonomy on the two studies summarized
in this notice and identification of the taxonomic issues that we have
provided.
A copy of Baker's study is available on our Web site at: http://southwest.fws.gov/.
The citation for the study by Schmalzel et al.

(2004) is provided below.

Literature Cited

Baker, Marc. 2004. Phenetic analysis of Coryphantha, section
Robustispina (Cactaceae), part 1: stem characters. Section 6 Grant
Report, 4 May 2004.
Benson, L. 1982. The Cacti of the United States and Canada. Stanford
University Press, Stanford, California.
Huxley, J. 1938. Clines: an auxiliary taxonomic principle. Nature
3587:219-220.
Schmalzel, R. J., R. T. Nixon, A. L. Best, J. A. Tress, Jr. 2004.
Morphometric variation in Coryphantha robustispina (Cactaceae).
Systematic Botany 29(3):553-568.
Stebbins, G. L. 1950. Variation and Evolution in Plants. Columbia
University Press, NY. 643 pp.
Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant Taxonomy; The Systematic Evaluation of
Comparative Data. Columbia University Press, New York. 514 pp.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1978. Determination that 11
plant taxa are endangered species and 2 plant taxa are threatened
species. Federal Register 43(81):17910-17916; April 26, 1978.

How Are Lesser Long-Nosed Bat, Black-Capped Vireo, Yuma Clapper Rail,
Pima Pineapple Cactus, Gypsum Wild-Buckwheat, Mesa Verde Cactus, and
Zuni Fleabane Currently Listed?

The List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (List) is
found in 50 CFR 17.11 (wildlife) and 17.12 (plants). Amendments to the
List through final rules are published in the Federal Register. The
List is also available on our Internet site at http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html#Species.
In Table 1 below, we provide

a summary of the listing information for the species under active
review.

Table 1.--Summary of the Listing Information for Lesser Long-Nosed Bat, Yuma Clapper Rail, Pima Pineapple
Cactus, Gypsum Wild-Buckwheat, Mesa Verde Cactus, and Zuni Fleabane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common name Scientific name Status Where listed Final listing rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lesser long-nosed bat........... Leptonycteris Endangered........ Across species 53 FR 38456, (30-
curasoae range (U.S.A., SEP-1988).
yerbabuenae \1\. Mexico, Central
America).
Black-capped vireo.............. Vireo atricapilla Endangered........ U.S.A. (Kansas, 52 FR 37420, (6-
\2\. Oklahoma, Texas, OCT-1987).
Mexico) \3\.
Yuma clapper rail............... Rallus Endangered........ U.S.A (Arizona, 32 FR 4001, (11-
longirostris California). MAR-67).
yumanensis.
Pima pineapple cactus........... Coryphantha Endangered........ Across species 58 FR 49875, (25-
scheeri var range (southern OCT-93).
robustispina. Arizona and
northern Sonora,
Mexico).
Gypsum wild-buckwheat........... Erigonum Threatened with Across species 46 FR 5730, (19-
gypsphilum. Critical Habitat. range (Eddy JAN-81).
County, New
Mexico).
Mesa Verde cactus............... Sclerocactus mesae- Threatened........ Across species 44 FR 62471, (30-
verdae. range (southwest OCT-79).
Colorado,
northwest New
Mexico, northeast
Arizona).

[[Page 5463]]

Zuni fleabane................... Erigeron Threatened........ Across species 50 FR 16680, (26-
rhizomatus. range (Arizona APR-85).
and New Mexico).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Synonyms for this species include L. sanborni, L. nivalis sanborni, L. yerbabunae, and L. curasoae.
\2\ The scientific name of this species has recently been changed from V. atricapillus to V. atricapilla (Dave,
N. and M. Gosselin. 2002. Gender agreement of the avian species names. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 122: 14-49).
\3\ We believe the table concluding the Final Rule for the black-capped vireo erroneously included Nebraska and
Louisiana as part of the historic range of the species.

Definitions Related to This Notice

The following definitions are provided to assist those persons who
contemplate submitting information regarding the species being
reviewed:
A. Species includes any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or
plant, and any distinct population segment of any species of
vertebrate, which interbreeds when mature.
B. Endangered means any species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
C. Threatened means any species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.

How Do We Determine Whether a Species Is Endangered or Threatened?

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act establishes that we determine whether a
species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five
following factors:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
C. Disease or predation;
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that our determination be made
on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.

What Could Happen as a Result of This Review?

If we find that there is new information concerning lesser long-
nosed bat, black-capped vireo, Yuma clapper rail, Pima pineapple
cactus, gypsum wild-buckwheat, Mesa Verde cactus, or Zuni fleabane
indicating a change in classification may be warranted, we may propose
a new rule that could do one of the following: (a) Reclassify the
species from endangered to threatened (downlist); (b) reclassify the
species from threatened to endangered (uplist); or (c) remove the
species from the List. If we determine that a change in classification
is not warranted, then these species will remain on the List under
their current status.

Public Solicitation of New Information

We request any new information concerning the status of lesser
long-nosed bat, black-capped vireo, Yuma clapper rail, Pima pineapple
cactus, gypsum wild-buckwheat, Mesa Verde cactus, and Zuni fleabane.
See ``What information is considered in the review?'' heading for
specific criteria. Information submitted should be supported by
documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to
gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent
publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources. Our
practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of
respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may
request that we withhold their home addresses from the supporting
record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also
may be circumstances in which we may withhold from the supporting
record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to
withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at
the beginning of your comment. We will not consider anonymous comments,
however. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses,
and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or
officials of organizations or businesses, available for public
inspection in their entirety.

Authority: This document is published under the authority of the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: December 16, 2004.
Geoffrey L. Haskett,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05-1924 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P