[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 8, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47352-47356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19334]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0047; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition to List Graptopetalum bartramii (Bartram Stonecrop) and
Pectis imberbis (Beardless Chinch Weed) as Endangered or Threatened and
Designate Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list Graptopetalum bartramii (Bartram
stonecrop) and Pectis imberbis (beardless chinch weed) as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),
and to designate critical habitat. Based on our review, we find that
the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing Bartram stonecrop and beardless chinch weed may
be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we will
initiate a review of the status of these species to determine if
listing Bartram stonecrop or beardless chinch weed, or both, is
warranted. To ensure that our status review is comprehensive, we
request scientific and commercial data and other information regarding
these species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month
finding on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned
action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before October 9, 2012. The deadline
for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
this date. After October 9, 2012, you must submit information directly
to the Division of Policy and Directives Management (see ADDRESSES
section below). Please note that we might not be able to address or
incorporate information that we receive after the above requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov and Search for Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0047,
which is the docket number for this action. If your submission will fit
in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information
collection procedures. If you attach your submission as a separate
document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach
multiple documents (such as form letters), our preferred format is a
spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2012-0047; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Request for Information
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321
West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; by telephone (602-
242-0210); or by facsimile (602-242-2513). If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review).
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, we request information on
Bartram stonecrop and beardless chinch weed from governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any
other interested parties. We seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for reproduction, germination, and
survival;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing, delisting,
or downlisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), which are:
(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.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing Bartram
stonecrop or beardless chinch weed, or both, is warranted, we will
propose critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the
Act), under section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore, we
request data and information on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation'' of each species within the geographical range
currently occupied by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently found;
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection;
[[Page 47353]]
(4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species that are ``essential for the conservation of the species;'' and
(5) What, if any, critical habitat you think we should propose for
designation if the species is proposed for listing, and why such
habitat meets the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this personal identifying information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will
post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding are available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal
business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
For the purposes of this document, we will refer to Graptopetalum
bartramii as Bartram stonecrop and Pectis imberbis as beardless chinch
weed.
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently
summarize in our 12-month finding.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will announce our
determination as to whether a petitioned action is warranted after we
have completed a thorough status review of the species, which is
conducted following a substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's
standards for 90-day findings and status reviews conducted for a 12-
month finding on a petition are different, as described above, a
substantial 90-day finding does not mean that our status review and
resulting determination will result in a warranted finding.
Petition History
On July 7, 2010, we received a petition dated July 7, 2010, from
the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that Bartram stonecrop
and beardless chinch weed be listed as endangered or threatened and
critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a
December 1, 2011, letter to the Center for Biological Diversity, we
responded that we reviewed the information presented in the petition
and determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing
the species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also
stated that per the Multi-District Litigation Settlement Agreements
(WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. 1:10-mc-00377-EGS (D. D.C.), we
are required to complete an initial finding in Fiscal Year 2012 as to
whether this petition contains substantial information indicating that
the action may be warranted. This 90-day finding addresses the July 7,
2010, petition.
Previous Federal Actions
Initially, Bartram stonecrop and beardless chinch weed were
included as Category 1 species in the 1980 Review of Plant Taxa for
Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species (45 FR 82480, December 15,
1980). Category 1 candidates were defined as species for which the
Service had sufficient information on hand to support the biological
appropriateness of them being listed as endangered or threatened
species. Subsequently, Bartram stonecrop and beardless chinch weed were
included as Category 2 candidate species in the 1983 Supplement to
Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species
(48 FR 53640, November 28, 1983). Category 2 species were taxa for
which information in our possession indicated that proposing to list
was possibly appropriate, but for which persuasive data on biological
vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed
listing rule. The designation of Category 2 species was discontinued in
the 1996 Notice of Final Decision on Identification of Candidates for
Listing as Endangered or Threatened (61 FR 64481, December 5, 1996);
therefore, since that time, these species were not, and are not
currently, considered candidates.
For each of the species, we provide a description of the species
and its life history and habitat, followed by an evaluation of the
information for each species, and our finding whether or not
substantial information is presented to indicate that the petitioned
action may be warranted for each species.
Species Information for Bartram Stonecrop
Taxonomy and Description
The petition did not provide detailed information on taxonomy or a
description of Bartram stonecrop; therefore, we used information
readily available in our files. Bartram stonecrop was described by J.
N. Rose in 1926 from specimens collected by E. Bartram. In 1936, T. H.
Kearney and R. H. Peebles changed the name of all Arizona species in
the genera Graptopetalum and Dudleya to the genus Echeveria (Kearney
and Peebles 1951, pp. 358-362; Phillips et al. 1982a, p. 1). Although
the Flora of Arizona (Kearney and Peebles 1951, p. 360) maintains E.
bartramii, Phillips et al. (1982a, p. 2) note that most botanists
recently concerned with this family separate the
[[Page 47354]]
genera Graptopetalum and Dudleya. Because botanists in recent decades
accept the characterization of Graptopetalum bartramii as a species, we
concur.
Bartram stonecrop is a small, succulent (fleshy), acaulescent
(without a stem) perennial plant in the Crassulaceae or stonecrop
family (Phillips et al. 1982a, p. 2). The plant has a basal rosette
comprising 20 or more flat to concave, smooth, blue-green leaves
(Phillips et al. 1982a, p. 2). Flower stalks up to 30.5 centimeters
(cm) (12 inches (in)) in height and topped with panicles (equilaterally
arranged flowering stems) are produced in late October to early
November (Phillips et al. 1982a, pp. 2, 7). Each panicle produces one
to three five-petaled, brown-to-red spotted flowers that are 2.54 cm
(1.0 in) or more across (Phillips et al. 1982a, p. 3).
Habitat
The petition notes that Bartram stonecrop is found in rock
crevices, ledges, and gravelly slopes from 1,113 to 2,042 meters (m)
(3,652 to 6,700 feet (ft)) in elevation in southern Arizona and Mexico.
The plant is typically found in the shade of Madrean evergreen woodland
overstory and under dense litter (Phillips et al. 1982a, p. 4). The
petition states that this species is known from 12 locations in
Arizona, including the Baboquivari, Chiricahua, Dragoon, Mule,
Patagonia, Rincon, Santa Rita, and Tumacacori Mountains in Cochise,
Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties, as well as from one location in Mexico.
The petition makes special note that populations are known to be very
small, typically consisting of a few individuals, and widely scattered.
Species Information for Beardless Chinch Weed
Taxonomy and Description
The petition did not provide detailed information on taxonomy or a
description of beardless chinch weed; therefore, we used information
readily available in our files. Beardless chinch weed was first
collected by Charles Wright in the early 1850s in Sonora, Mexico, and
was described by Asa Gray in 1853 (Phillips et al. 1982b, p. 1). The
name has remained unchanged since that time, and there are no known
synonyms; therefore, we accept the characterization of beardless chinch
weed as a valid species.
Beardless chinch weed is an erect, many-branched, perennial herb
growing 3-12 decimeters (dm) (12 to 47 in) from a woody caudex (stem
base) (Phillips et al. 1982b, p. 2). The glabrous (without hairs)
leaves are 1 to 5 cm (0.4 to 2 in) in length and 1 to 2 millimeters
(mm) (0.04 to 0.08 in) wide with pointed tips, becoming smaller toward
the tips (Phillips et al. 1982b, p. 2). The leaves have a row of
narrow, oval-shaped glands on the underside surface near each margin
and a single, oval-shaped gland on the upper surface (Phillips et al.
1982b, p. 2). Daisy-like flower heads containing yellow ray and disk
flowers are solitary or in open, flat-topped clusters at the tips of
the branches (Phillips et al. 1982b, p. 2). The petals are also dotted
with oil glands (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2003, p. 1).
Flowering occurs from August to October when the plants are over 0.5 m
(1.6 ft) in height (Kearney and Peebles 1951, p. 935; Phillips et al.
1982b, p. 8). Unlike other species in this genus, beardless chinch weed
has no fine hairs fringing the base of the upper leaves; instead, it
has a single pair of trichomes (hair-like growth) on the lower leaves
(Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 19).
Habitat
Beardless chinch weed is found in the Atascosa, Huachuca, Oro
Blanco, Patagonia, and Santa Rita Mountains, and the Canelo Hills of
Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, as well as Chihuahua
and Sonora, Mexico, from 1,150 to 1,725 m (3,773 to 5,660 ft) in
elevation (Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 19). All but two known
populations in the United States occur on lands managed by the Coronado
National Forest (Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 20). While more typically
found in tropical deciduous forests and oak woodlands at higher
elevations, and grasslands at lower elevations, it has also been found
on disturbed road cuts, arroyo cuts, and unstable rocky slopes, where
it has little competition for sunlight (Phillips et al. 1982b, pp. 4,
6; Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 19). Of the 24 beardless chinch weed
collections and occurrence location information in our files, 5 are
from road cuts, and 19 are from grasslands (Deecken 1991, p. 1; Deecken
1992, p. 1; Deecken 1994, p. 1; Fishbein and Warren 1994, pp. 22-24).
Abundance
There are 11 populations of beardless chinch weed in southern
Arizona; all populations are considered small (Fishbein and Warren
1994, p. 19). The following is a summary of the locations and
population estimates for beardless chinch weed in Arizona. A 1993
survey of Scotia Canyon found 125 individuals (Fishbein and Warren
1994, p. 22); surveys in the Canelo Hills from 1991, 1992, and 1994
located 15, 40, and 4 individuals, respectively (Deecken 1991, p. 1;
Deecken 1992, p. 1; Deecken 1994, p. 1); and a 1980-1981 survey done
along the Ruby Road found 100 plants in 4 different locations (Phillips
et al. 1982b, p. 8). In addition, we have records of two herbarium
collections--Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Lake Recreation Area in 1975 (seven
individuals) and the Santa Rita Mountains in 1981 (two individuals)
(Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 22). No other populations have recorded
estimates, and no population estimates for known populations have been
made since 1993. The petition states that surveys in potential habitat
in the Huachuca Mountains and Canelo Hills in 1994 did not detect new
populations and that the plant has not been seen in several Coronado
National Forest sites since the late 1970s.
The distribution and abundance of the species in Mexico is unknown,
though beardless chinch weed has been collected from the Distrito
Alamos and the Region of the Rio Bavispe in Sonora and the upper Rio
Mayo basin in Chihuahua and Sonora (Fishbein and Warren 1994, pp. 20,
24). The petition states that the plant has not been seen in Mexico
since last collected there in 1936. The petition emphasizes that small
population size exists across the species' range, warning that impacts
to individual plants could result in population extirpation.
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a
species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(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.
In considering what factors might constitute threats we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response,
[[Page 47355]]
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to
determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant,
it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species may warrant listing as an endangered or
threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not
necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of
exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely
impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could
impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding
that listing may be warranted. The information must contain evidence
sufficient to suggest that these factors may be operative threats that
act on the species to the point that the species may meet the
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding the status and threats to Bartram stonecrop and beardless
chinch weed, as presented in the petition and other information readily
available in our files, is substantial, thereby indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation of this information
is presented below.
Evaluation of Petition Information and Finding for Bartram Stonecrop
The petition presented information regarding the following factors
as potential threats to the Bartram stonecrop: Mining, livestock
grazing, recreation, road construction and maintenance, border patrol
activities, exotic plant invasion and control, conversion of habitat
for cultivation, overutilization, inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms, small population size, low reproductive rates, loss of
protective cryptobiotic soils (a biological soil crust composed of
living algae, fungi or lichens commonly found in arid regions)
stochastic events, drought, and climate change. After reviewing the
petition and other information presented by the petitioner and
information readily available in our files, we have determined that
there is substantial information to indicate that the Bartram stonecrop
may warrant listing as a result of its apparently small population
sizes that are subject to unauthorized collection. Following we present
a discussion of these factors.
As discussed in the ``Species Information for Bartram Stonecrop''
section above, the petitioner notes that populations are known to be
very small, typically consisting of a few individuals, and widely
scattered. Because Bartram stonecrop populations are small and
discrete, they are vulnerable to a variety of disturbances, especially
collection (USDA Forest Service 1991). The petition presented
information that Bartram stonecrop has been collected, and that
declines in the known populations may be due to collection (USDA Forest
Service 1991).
The petition also references Phillips et al. (1982a, p. 9), who
report moderate to heavy recreational use near occupied sites, possibly
increasing the likelihood of plant collection, especially when the
plants are in bloom. Additional information readily available in our
files states that stonecrop species in general are sometimes collected
for the cactus and succulent trade, with rare species such as Bartram
stonecrop, particularly sought (Coronado National Forest 2007, p. 13;
USDA Forest Service 1991, p. 2). In addition, it is noteworthy that
Phillips et al. (1982a, p. 4) did not provide specific locations in
their report due to concern that plants of Bartram stonecrop might be
targeted for collection. Van Devender (1981, pp. 3-4) mentions that
collecting probably has an important impact, noting that Bartram
stonecrop is attractive and often collected.
Small populations may not be able to recover from collection,
especially if the mature, reproductive plants are removed. The removal
of mature plants reduces the overall reproductive effort of the
population, thereby reducing the overall resilience of the population.
Collection may have a profound effect on Bartram stonecrop populations
due to the small number of locations and small population size.
The information presented by the petitioner and readily available
in our files suggests the Bartram stonecrop is subject to
overutilization pressures and has apparently experienced declines in
some populations as a result. This information is sufficient to suggest
that this factor may be an operative threat that acts on the species to
the point that it may meet the definition of an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. Therefore, on the basis of our
determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we find that the
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing Bartram stonecrop throughout its entire range
may be warranted. Because we have found that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that listing Bartram stonecrop may
be warranted, we will be initiating a status review to determine
whether listing Bartram stonecrop under the Act is warranted.
This finding was made primarily based on information related to
small population size and collection. However, as noted above, the
petitioners also presented information suggesting that mining,
livestock grazing, recreation, road construction and maintenance,
border patrol activities, exotic plant invasion and control, conversion
of habitat for cultivation, inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms, low reproductive rates, loss of protective cryptobiotic
soils, stochastic events, drought, and climate change may be threats to
the Bartram stonecrop. We will fully evaluate these potential threats
during our status review, pursuant to the Act's requirement to review
the best available scientific information when making that finding.
Accordingly, we encourage the public to consider and submit information
related to these and any other threats that may be operating on the
Bartram stonecrop (see Request for Information).
Evaluation of Petition Information and Finding for Beardless Chinch
Weed
The petition presented information regarding the following factors
as potential threats to the beardless chinch weed: Mining, livestock
grazing, recreation, road maintenance, exotic plant invasion and
control, conversion of habitat for cultivation, inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, small population size, low reproductive rates,
stochastic events, drought, and climate change. After reviewing the
petition, information presented by the petitioner, and information
readily available in our files, we have determined that substantial
information was presented to indicate that the beardless chinch weed
may warrant listing due to the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range as a result of
livestock grazing. Following we present a discussion of these
significant factors.
With regard to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of
beardless chinch weed habitat or range, the petition cites the USDA
Forest Service (2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006), which acknowledges there
have been impacts to beardless chinch weed individuals due to livestock
herbivory and trampling. The petition states that impacts on
individuals may have population-level effects because some populations
are very small and there are only 13 known populations in Arizona.
Eight of the known populations occur within grazing allotments on the
Coronado National Forest, which the petition claims are heavily grazed.
The petition also references Phillips et al.
[[Page 47356]]
(1992b) and Fishbein and Warren (1994) who report that plants do not
flower until they are over 0.5 m (1.6 ft) tall and, under heavy grazing
pressure, beardless chinch weed plants may be unable to attain adequate
size for reproduction. An inability of the plants to reproduce could
affect the stability of the populations and lead to an overall decrease
in the species' vigor within these populations.
Additional information readily available in our files states that
grazing pressure may have contributed to the species' rareness;
however, there is no evidence presented for this observation (Keil
1982, pers. comm.). Falk and Warren (1994, p. 157) state that the
species is thought to be susceptible to impacts from grazing. Deecken
(1992, p. 1) noted finding a population of 15 or more plants on the
edge of a cattle trail. In addition, Deecken (1995, pers. comm.)
described a Coronado National Forest project that realigned a fence to
prevent cattle from moving downslope through beardless chinch weed
sites. Of the 24 records in our files that provide any indication of
habitat, 19 were from grasslands of varying slope and likely accessible
to livestock. This information indicates that livestock grazing may
affect the species and its habitat, but does not provide conclusive
evidence.
The information presented by the petitioner and readily available
in our files suggests that the beardless chinch weed is subject to
livestock grazing pressures throughout much of its range and has
apparently experienced declines in some populations as a result. This
information is sufficient to suggest that this factor, exacerbated by
the small population size, may be an operative threat that acts on the
species to the point that it may meet the definition of an endangered
or threatened species under the Act. Therefore, on the basis of our
determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we find that the
petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing beardless chinch weed throughout its entire
range may be warranted. Because we have found that the petition
presents substantial information indicating that listing beardless
chinch weed may be warranted, we will initiate a status review to
determine whether listing beardless chinch weed under the Act is
warranted.
This finding was made primarily based on information related to the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range as a result of livestock grazing. However, as noted
above, the petitioners also presented information suggesting that
mining, livestock grazing, recreation, road maintenance, exotic plant
invasion and control, conversion of habitat for cultivation, inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms, small population size, low
reproductive rates, stochastic events, drought, and climate change may
be threats to the beardless chinch weed. We will fully evaluate these
potential threats during our status review, pursuant to the Act's
requirement to review the best available scientific information when
making that finding. Accordingly, we encourage the public to consider
and submit information related to these and any other threats that may
be operating on the beardless chinch weed (see Request for
Information).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 26, 2012.
Thomas O. Melius,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-19334 Filed 8-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P