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, 5460-5463 [05-1924]
Download as PDF
5460
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices
The following language is proposed to
be negotiated as part of the 2006 Title
I and Title IV funding agreements
regarding fiduciary trust records
management:
The Tribe/Consortium and Secretary agree
to implement the Policy on Fiduciary Trust
Records Management for Title I and Title IV
Tribes/Consortia by working cooperatively in
records creation, maintenance and
disposition and training activities.
The Tribe/Consortium agrees to:
(a) Preserve, protect and manage all
fiduciary trust records, as defined in the
Secretary of Interior’s Policy on
Fiduciary Trust Records Management
for Title I and Title IV Tribes/Consortia
created and maintained by Tribes/
Consortia during their management of
trust programs in their Title I/Title IV
agreements;
(b) Make available to the Secretary all
fiduciary trust records maintained by
the Tribe/Consortium, provided that the
Secretary gives reasonable oral or
written advance request to the Tribe/
Consortium. Access shall include visual
inspection and the production of copies
as necessary and shall not include the
involuntary removal of the records; and
(c) Store and permanently retain all
inactive fiduciary trust records at the
Tribe/Consortium or allow such records
to be removed and stored at the
American Indian Records Repository
(AIRR) in Lenexa, Kansas at no cost to
the Tribe/Consortium.
The Secretary agrees to:
(a) Allow the Tribe/Consortium to
determine what records it maintains to
implement the trust program assumed
under a Title I or Title IV agreement
except it must maintain the information
required by statute and regulation;
(b) Store all inactive fiduciary trust
records at AIRR at no cost to the Tribe/
Consortium when the Tribe/Consortium
no longer wishes to keep the records.
Further, the Tribe/Consortium will
retain legal custody and determine
access to these records;
(c) Work with the Tribe/Consortium
on a tribal storage and retrieval system
for fiduciary trust records stored at
AIRR; and
(d) Provide technical and financial
assistance for Tribes/Consortia in
preserving, protecting and managing
their fiduciary trust records from
available funds appropriated for this
purpose.
Dated: January 26, 2005.
Abraham E. Haspel,
Assistant Deputy Secretary—Office of the
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05–1869 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–W8–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:19 Feb 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of review.
AGENCY:
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 wildbuckwheat (Erigonum gypsophilum),
Mesa Verde cactus (Sclerocactus mesaeverde), 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 longnosed 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 blackcapped 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Information regarding gypsum wildbuckwheat, 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 blackcapped 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).
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices
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, blackcapped vireo, Yuma clapper rail, Pima
pineapple cactus, gypsum wildbuckwheat, 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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:19 Feb 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5461
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
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
5462
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices
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: https://
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, BlackCapped Vireo, Yuma Clapper Rail,
Pima Pineapple Cactus, Gypsum WildBuckwheat, 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 https://
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
Across species range
(U.S.A., Mexico, Central
America).
U.S.A. (Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Mexico) 3.
U.S.A (Arizona, California)
Lesser long-nosed bat .......
Leptonycteris curasoae
yerbabuenae 1.
Endangered .......................
Black-capped vireo ............
Vireo atricapilla 2 ...............
Endangered .......................
Yuma clapper rail ..............
Endangered .......................
Pima pineapple cactus ......
Rallus longirostris
yumanensis.
Coryphantha scheeri var
robustispina.
Gypsum wild-buckwheat ...
Erigonum gypsphilum .......
Threatened with Critical
Habitat.
Mesa Verde cactus ...........
Sclerocactus mesaeverdae.
Threatened ........................
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:19 Feb 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Endangered .......................
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Across species range
(southern Arizona and
northern Sonora, Mexico).
Across species range
(Eddy County, New
Mexico).
Across species range
(southwest Colorado,
northwest New Mexico,
northeast Arizona).
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
Final listing rule
53 FR 38456, (30–SEP–
1988).
52 FR 37420, (6–OCT–
1987).
32 FR 4001, (11–MAR–
67).
58 FR 49875, (25–OCT–
93).
46 FR 5730, (19–JAN–81).
44 FR 62471, (30–OCT–
79).
5463
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Notices
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—Continued
Common name
Scientific name
Status
Where listed
Zuni fleabane .....................
Erigeron rhizomatus ..........
Threatened ........................
Across species range (Arizona and New Mexico).
Final listing rule
50 FR 16680, (26–APR–
85).
1 Synonyms
for this species include L. sanborni, L. nivalis sanborni, L. yerbabunae, and L. curasoae.
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.
2 The
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 longnosed 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:19 Feb 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 longnosed 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
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Submission of Information Collection
to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for Review Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice announces that
the Information Collection Request for
Adult Education Annual Report Form,
OMB Control No. 1076–0120, requires
renewal. The information collection
requirement, with no appreciable
changes, is submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before March 4, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments are to be sent to
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior. Comments
may be sent via facsimile to (202) 395–
6566 or you may send e-mail to:
OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov. Copies of
comments should be sent to Edward
Parisian, Acting Director, Office of
Indian Education Programs, Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
1849 C St., NW., Mail Stop 3609–MIB,
Washington, DC 20240, or hand
delivered to room 3609 at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Garry Martin, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Department of the Interior, 1849 C
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240,
202–208–3478.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
The information collection is
necessary to assess the need for adult
education programs in accordance with
25 CFR 46, subpart A, sections 46.20
Program Requirements and 46.30
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5460-5463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1924]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: https://
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 https://
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