Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 235 (Friday, December 6, 2019) 2019 Federal Register, 84 FR 67060-67104; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67060-67104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26210]

[[Page 67059]]

Vol. 84

Friday,

No. 235

December 6, 2019

Part III

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Beardless Chinchweed With Designation of Critical Habitat,
and Threatened Species Status for Bartram's Stonecrop With Section 4(d)
Rule; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2019 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 67060]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BD35

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list Pectis imberbis (beardless chinchweed), a plant species from
southern Arizona and northern Mexico, as an endangered species and to
designate critical habitat for Beardless chinchweed under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. In total, we propose
to designate approximately 10,604 acres (4,291 hectares) in southern
Arizona as critical habitat for this plant. We also announce the
availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation
of critical habitat for beardless chinchweed.
In addition, we propose to list Graptopetalum bartramii (Bartram's
stonecrop), a plant species from southern Arizona and northern Mexico,
as a threatened species under the Act and to issue a rule under section
4(d) of the Act to provide for the conservation of Bartram's stonecrop.
We are not proposing to designate critical habitat for Bartram's
stonecrop because we find that a designation is not prudent. If we make
this rule final as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to
both of these species and to beardless chinchweed's critical habitat.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
February 4, 2020. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by January 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES:
Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
Document availability: The draft economic analysis is available at
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm, at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104, and at the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the map is
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical
habitat designation and are available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm, at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104, and at the Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or
supporting information that we may develop for this critical habitat
designation will also be available at the Fish and Wildlife Service
website and Field Office set out above, and may also be included in the
preamble and/or at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Humphrey, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office,
9828 North 31st Avenue, #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517; telephone 602-242-
0210. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is
determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or
a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish
a proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our
proposal within 1 year. Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of
the Interior has the discretion to issue such regulations as he deems
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened
species. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, for any species determined to be an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species as an
endangered or threatened species, adopting provisions under section
4(d) of the Act for a threatened species, and designations and
revisions of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. We propose to list beardless chinchweed as
an endangered species and Bartram's stonecrop as a threatened species.
This proposed rule assesses all available information regarding status
of and stressors to beardless chinchweed and Bartram's stonecrop. We
also propose a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act to provide for
the conservation of Bartram's stonecrop. In addition, we propose to
designate critical habitat for beardless chinchweed. We are not
proposing critical habitat for Bartram's stonecrop as we have
determined that the designation of critical habitat for this species is
not prudent.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five
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.
For beardless chinchweed, we have determined that the key factors
supporting the proposed endangered finding are: Loss of habitat due to
invasion by nonnative species (Factor A); altered fire regime
exacerbated by nonnative invasion (Factors A and E); altered
precipitation, drought, and temperature (Factors A and E); road and
trail maintenance, mining, livestock, wildlife, and post-wildfire
runoff (Factors A and E); grazing from wildlife and livestock (Factor
C); and small population size exacerbating all other stressors (Factor
E). The existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to address
these factors such that the species does not meet the definition of

[[Page 67061]]

an endangered or threatened species (Factor D).
For Bartram's stonecrop, we have determined the key factors
supporting the proposed threatened finding are: Reduction in water
availability (Factors A and E); erosion, sedimentation, and burial
(Factors A and E); trampling (Factor E); altered fire regime (Factors A
and E); loss of shade (Factors A and E); altered flooding regime
(Factors A and E); drought (Factors A and E); predation of individuals
and shade trees (Factors A, C, and E); illegal collection (Factor B);
and small population size (Factor E). The existing regulatory
mechanisms are not adequate to address these factors such that the
species does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened
species (Factor D).
Under the Act, any species that is determined to be an endangered
or a threatened species shall, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, have habitat designated that is considered to be critical
habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he
determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the
failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the
extinction of the species. Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary
of the Interior has the discretion to issue such regulations as he
deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of
threatened species.
We prepared an economic analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared an
analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat
designation. We hereby announce the availability of the draft economic
analysis and seek public review and comment.
Peer review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we
have sought the expert opinions of three appropriate and independent
specialists regarding the scientific information in the species status
assessment upon which this proposed rule is based. The purpose of peer
review is to ensure that our listing determinations and critical
habitat designation are based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise with
beardless chinchweed's or Bartram's stonecrop's biology, habitat,
physical or biological factors, or stressors. Species status assessment
reports for beardless chinchweed and Bartram's stonecrop were developed
(Service 2018a and 2018b, entire), which represent a compilation of the
best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of
the species, including the past, present, and future stressors to the
species. We requested peer review of each species status assessment
report from three independent specialists, with expertise with the
species, to ensure that we based our determinations on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers' comments
have been considered and incorporated where appropriate in the species
status assessment reports (Service 2018a and 2018b, entire), which are
available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm,
and at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104.
The peer review comments will be available along with other public
comments in the docket for this proposed rule on http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104).

Information Requested

Public Comments

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) Beardless chinchweed and Bartram's stonecrop biology, range,
and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of these species,
including habitat requirements for germination, growth, and
reproduction;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution in Mexico;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these species, their
habitats, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of these
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction,
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any stressors (or lack thereof) to these species and existing
regulations that may be addressing those stressors.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of these species,
including the locations of any additional populations of these species.
(5) Information related to climate change within the range these
species and how it may affect these species' habitats.
(6) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of these species and that the Service can
consider in developing a 4(d) rule for the species. In particular,
information concerning the extent to which we should include any of the
section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or whether any other forms of
take should be excepted from the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule.
(7) The reasons why areas should or should not be designated as
critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) including information to inform the following factors such that a
designation of critical habitat may be determined to be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(8) The following specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of habitat;
(b) What areas, that are currently occupied and that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of these
species, should be

[[Page 67062]]

included in a critical habitat designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed for the essential features in potential critical habitat areas,
including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species. We particularly seek comments
regarding:
(i) Whether occupied areas are inadequate for the conservation of
the species; and,
(ii) Specific information that supports the determination that
unoccupied areas will, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the
conservation of the species and, contain at least one physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.
(9) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(10) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that may
be impacted.
(11) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts.
(12) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(13) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat, as discussed in the associated documents of the
draft economic analysis, and how the consequences of such reactions, if
likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
(14) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
(15) Additional guidance and methods that the Service could provide
or use, respectively, to streamline the implementation of the proposed
4(d) rule for Bartram's stonecrop.
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.
Please note that 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, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this 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.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after
the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register
(see DATES, above). Such requests must be sent to the address shown in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on
this proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of
the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing.

Previous Federal Actions

Beardless Chinchweed

Beardless chinchweed was a candidate for listing from 1980 to 1996.
It was first a Category 1 candidate species, as identified in our
December 15, 1980, notice of review (45 FR 82480). Category 1 is a term
no longer in use, having been replaced by the term ``candidate
species.'' A candidate species is a species for which the Service has
on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and
threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but issuance
of the proposed rule is precluded by higher priority actions to amend
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. In 1983,
beardless chinchweed was reclassified as a Category 2 species (48 FR
53640; November 28, 1983). A Category 2 species referred to a species
for which the Service had some indication that listing as endangered or
threatened might be warranted, but there were insufficient data
available to justify a proposal to list. The species remained so
designated in subsequent annual candidate notices of review (50 FR
39526, September 27, 1985; 55 FR 6184, February 21, 1990; 58 FR 51144;
September 30, 1993). In 1996, the Service eliminated Category 2
species; consequently, this species dropped off the candidate list. The
Service received a petition in July 2010 to list beardless chinchweed
and designate critical habitat under the Act (Center for Biological
Diversity 2010, entire). The Service published a 90-day finding on
August 8, 2012 (77 FR 47352), concluding that the petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing of the species may be warranted.

Bartram's Stonecrop

Bartram's stonecrop was a candidate for listing from 1980 to 1996.
It was first a Category 1 candidate species, as identified in our
December 15, 1980, notice of review (45 FR 82480), and then in 1983, it
was reclassified as a Category 2 species (48 FR 53640; November 28,
1983). The species remained so designated in subsequent annual
candidate notices of review (50 FR 39526, September 27, 1985; 55 FR
6184, February 21, 1990; 58 FR 51144; September 30, 1993). In 1996, the
Service eliminated Category 2 species; consequently, this species
dropped off the candidate list. The Service received a petition in July
2010 to list Bartram's stonecrop and designate critical habitat under
the Act (Center for Biological Diversity 2010, entire). The Service
published a 90-day finding on August 8, 2012 (77 FR 47352), concluding
that the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing of the species may be warranted.

[[Page 67063]]

I. Proposed Listings

Background

To provide the necessary and most up-to-date information and
background on which to base our determination, we completed a species
status assessment (SSA) report for beardless chinchweed (Service 2018a,
entire), and an SSA report for Bartram's stonecrop (Service 2018b,
entire), which are available online at http://www.regulations.gov,
under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104. The SSA reports document the
results of the comprehensive biological status review for each species,
and each provides an account of the applicable species' overall
viability through the forecasting of the condition of populations into
the future. We generally define viability as the ability of the species
to persist over the long term and, conversely, to avoid extinction
(Service 2016, entire). In the SSA reports, we summarize the relevant
biological data; describe the past, present, and likely future risk
factors (causes and effects); and conduct an analysis of the viability
of the species. The SSA reports provide the scientific basis that
informs our regulatory decision regarding whether these species should
be listed under the Act. This decision involves the application of
standards within the Act, its implementing regulations, and Service
policies (see Determination, below). Further, these SSA reports contain
the risk analysis on which this determination is based, and the
following discussion is a summary of the results and conclusions from
these SSA reports. Species experts and appropriate agencies provided
input into the development of these SSA reports.
Beardless Chinchweed
Beardless chinchweed is plant of the Asteraceae, or sunflower,
family. Beardless chinchweed was first collected by Charles Wright in
the early 1850s in Sonora, Mexico (now part of Santa Cruz County,
Arizona), and was described by Asa Gray in 1853 (Phillips et al. 1982,
p. 1; Keil 1978, p. 135). The name has remained unchanged since that
time, and there are no known synonyms. Based on this information as the
best available scientific and commercial data, we accept the
characterization of beardless chinchweed as a valid species.
Beardless chinchweed is an erect, many-branched, perennial herb
growing 3 to 12 decimeters (1 to 4 feet (ft)) from a slender, woody,
taprooted caudex (stem base) (Keil 1978, p. 143; Phillips et al. 1982,
p. 2; Keil 2017, pers. comm.). The glabrous (without hairs) leaves are
1 to 5 centimeters (cm) (0.4 to 2 inches (in)) in length and 1 to 2
millimeters (mm) (0.04 to 0.08 in) wide with pointed tips (Phillips et
al. 1982, 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. 1982, p. 2). In fruit, the heads have red
to purple drying phyllaries (bracts around the flower head of a
composite plant) and have small (<5 mm (0.2 in) long), spreading, awned
black achenes (simple dry fruit) (Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 19).
Although we do not know exactly how long individual beardless
chinchweed live, experts estimate 5 to 10 years (Keil 2017, pers.
comm.).
Young beardless chinchweed plants have been noted in April (Dahlby
2017, pers. comm.), and are still present in November (Westland 2010,
p. 10). Flowering occurs from August to October, when the plants are
more than 0.5 meters (m) (1.6 ft) in height (Kearney and Peebles 1951,
p. 935; Phillips et al. 1982, p. 8). There have been no reports of the
plant from winter months, when beardless chinchweed is presumed to die
back to the ground. It is unknown how long flowers remain open. In one
measurement of the number of flowers per stem, these range from 0 to
55, with an average of 28.3 per stem (Service 2015, p. 1). It was
estimated that there were 6 to 8 seeds per head, resulting in a
potential of roughly 832 seeds per plant, although seed loss to
grazing, desiccation, and abortion were not accounted for. Germination
and establishment may be sporadic or require specific conditions for
success (Keil 1978, p. 144). There is no information available on the
seedbank longevity of the species; however, we are aware that within
populations, a variety of age classes are represented (Phillips et al.
1982, p. 7; Service 2011, p. 4; Service 2014a, p. 2; Service 2015, p.
1; Sebesta 2017, pers. comm.). Therefore, we believe viable seeds are
being produced and reproduction is occurring.
The species has been reported to reproduce both by seed and
rhizomes (Westland 2010, p. 10), although there is no evidence that the
species is rhizomatous (Keil 2017, pers. comm.). It is not known
whether plants are able to pollinate themselves or require the pollen
of another plant. However, it is likely that the plant requires
pollinators. The pollinators of beardless chinchweed are not known, but
other Pectis species are reported to be pollinated by bees and flies
(Cockerell 1897, pp. 148-149; Cockerell 1911, pp. 136-137, 141-142;
Simpson and Neff 1987, p. 434; Phillip et al. 2006, pp. 532, 535-536,
538), and both an Acmaeodera beetle and a Diadasia bee were noted
visiting beardless chinchweed plants (Sebesta 2017, pers. comm.).
Butterflies may also use this species, as showy yellow heads containing
both ray and disk flowers serve as landing platforms and are easily
accessible to a variety of low energy pollinators such as butterflies
(Schmitt 1980, p. 935; Keil 2017, pers. comm.).
Beardless chinchweed is typically found in oak woodlands at higher
elevations, and desert grasslands and oak savannas at lower elevations
(McLaughlin et al. 2001, pp. 119, 121). However, it has also been found
on disturbed road cuts, arroyo cuts, and unstable rocky slopes, where
it has little competition for sunlight and nutrients (Phillips et al.
1982, pp. 4, 6; Fishbein and Warren 1994, p. 19). It is found at
elevations from 1,158-1,737 m (3,799-5,699 ft) (SEINet 2017, entire).
Plants are typically noted to occur on steep, south-facing, sunny to
partially shaded hillslopes, with eroding bedrock and open areas with
little competition from other plants. The nonstable substrate, which
could be moved through gravity, erosion, or impact, reduces competition
with other vegetation, favoring beardless chinchweed. It is presumed to
be a poor competitor due to its preferred open habitat and inability to
find the species under dense vegetation conditions.
Beardless chinchweed requires a lack of competition from other
plants. The different shaped and sized canopy and root systems of
associated plant species within healthy grasslands, savannas, and
woodlands create heterogeneity of form, height, and open patches needed
by beardless chinchweed. Open patches are created and maintained
through a variety of abiotic and biotic mechanisms (Porensky et al.
2013, p. 591), including natural erosion (from things like
precipitation events, gravity, and animals); the grazing and browsing
of native animals, such as black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys
ludovicianus) and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) (BANWR
2012, entire; Bahre 1995, p. 231; McPherson and Weltzin 2000, p. 4);
and low severity, frequent wildfires (Hoffmeister 1986, pp. 194-195;
McPherson and Weltzin 2000, p. 5; Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 6; McDonald
and McPherson 2011a, p. 385; Fryer and Leunsmann 2012, entire). The
desert grasslands, oak savannas, and oak woodlands of southern Arizona
historically had large-scale, low severity fire roughly every 10 to 20
years and following periods of adequate moisture (McPherson and Weltzin
2000, p. 5; Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 6; McDonald and McPherson 2011a,
p. 385; Fryer and

[[Page 67064]]

Leunsmann 2012, entire). Precipitation within the mountain ranges is
bimodal, with dormant season snow and rain, and growing season monsoon
rain. Data are lacking to indicate how beardless chinchweed uses
dormant season versus growing season precipitation; however, we believe
that dormant season precipitation is more important because this is
needed for seed germination and growth.
The historical range of beardless chinchweed was larger than the
current range, with a greater number of populations than persist today
in southeastern Arizona and northern Sonora and Chihuahua Mexico. The
historical distribution included 21 separate beardless chinchweed
populations within the Atascosa-Pajarito, Huachuca, Patagonia, and
Santa Rita Mountains and Canelo Hills of Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz
Counties, Arizona, as well as in northern Chihuahua and Sonora Mexico
(see Table 1, below). We define a population of beardless chinchweed as
one or more subpopulations that occur within 1 kilometer (km) (0.62
miles (mi)) of other beardless chinchweed individuals allowing for gene
flow and movement through cross-pollination. Because many bees and
butterflies can travel a distance of 1 km (0.62 mi), we believe plants
within this distance to be a single population. Subpopulations within a
population are separated by between 300 and 999 m (984.3 and 3,278 ft).
Of the 21 populations, 15 were in Arizona and 6 were in Mexico. The
number of individuals seen historically in Mexico is not available, and
no beardless chinchweed have been reported from Mexico since 1940. Nine
populations and one subpopulation in Arizona have become extirpated
since 1962.

Table 1--Current Status of Beardless Chinchweed Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpopulation name Subpopulation
Mountain range/country Population name Population status * status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, USA Pena Blanca Lake.. Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Ruby Road......... Extant............ N/A............... Extant.
Summit Motorway... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Canelo Hills, USA............... Audubon Research Extant............ Post Canyon....... Extirpated.
Ranch.
.................. .................. Tributary of Extant.
O'Donnell Canyon.
Copper Mountain... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Harshaw Creek..... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Lampshire Well.... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Huachuca Mountains, USA......... Scotia Canyon..... Extant............ N/A............... Extant.
Coronado National Extant............ State of Texas Extant.
Memorial. Mine.
.................. .................. Visitor Center.... Extant.
Joe's Canyon Trail Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Patagonia Mountains, USA........ Flux Canyon....... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Washington Camp... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
Santa Rita Mountains, USA....... Box Canyon Road... Extirpated........ N/A............... Extirpated.
McCleary Canyon-- Extant............ N/A............... Extant.
Gunsight Pass.
McCleary Canyon-- Extant............ N/A............... Extant.
Wasp Canyon.
Chihuahua, Mexico............... Batopililas....... Unknown; presume N/A............... Unknown; presume
extant. extant.
Guasaremos........ Unknown; presume N/A............... Unknown; presume
extant. extant.
Sonora, Mexico.................. Canon de la Unknown; presume N/A............... Unknown; presume
Petaquilla. extant. extant.
Canyon Estrella... Unknown; presume N/A............... Unknown; presume
extant. extant.
Horconcitos....... Unknown; presume N/A............... Unknown; presume
extant. extant.
Los Conejos....... Unknown; presume N/A............... Unknown; presume
extant. extant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In this column of the table, N/A means ``not applicable.''

Currently, there are 12 populations in Arizona and Mexico. In
Arizona, there are currently 387 individual beardless chinchweed spread
across less than 2 hectares (ha) (5 acres (ac)) within six extant
populations spread across the following four mountain ranges: The
Atascosa-Pajarito, Huachuca, Santa Rita mountain ranges, and the Canelo
Hills (see Table 1, above). Five of the six populations in Arizona
contain fewer than 50 individuals. Most of the mountain ranges in the
United States have been surveyed for beardless chinchweed, and it is
unlikely that any large populations remain unaccounted for therein. In
addition, there are six populations in northern Mexico for which we
have no current information. Inquiries between February 17 and December
12, 2017, with 11 researchers familiar with the flora of Chihuahua and
Sonora revealed no information on the status of the species in Mexico.
We believe these populations are extant, but with few individuals and
with poor habitat condition (similar to the smallest extant populations
in the United States), because much of the grasslands in beardless
chinchweed' historical range in Mexico have been invaded by nonnative
species (Romo et al., 2012, entire; Arriaga et al., 2004, entire).
For beardless chinchweed to maintain viability, its populations or
some representative portion thereof must be resilient. Resiliency
describes the ability of populations to withstand stochastic events
(arising from random factors). We can measure resiliency based on
metrics of population health (for example, germination versus death
rates and population size). Highly resilient populations are better
able to withstand disturbances such as random fluctuations in
germination rates (demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall
(environmental stochasticity), or the effects of anthropogenic
activities. A beardless chinchweed population with high resiliency is
one in which abundance is high, the number of subpopulations is high
and spatially dispersed, seed production is high,

[[Page 67065]]

recruitment is such that the population remains stable or increases,
and the population is able to withstand stochastic events or recover to
current or better condition from stochastic events from seed bank.
Population resiliency categories for beardless chinchweed are described
in section 3.2 of the SSA report (Service 2018a).
In addition to the above demographic needs, populations also need
habitat elements for resiliency. Based on where the species has
typically been found, a resilient population needs eroding granite or
limestone soils or rock outcrops with native-dominated habitat, on
sunny to partly shaded southern exposures. Beardless chinchweed plants
are also often associated with active disturbances from frequent, low
severity wildfire; grazing and browsing of native animals; and natural
erosion of nonstable substrates, thus reducing competition for
beardless chinchweed. In addition, resilient populations need soil
moisture for seed germination, growth, and reproduction in the form of
dormant season (October through March) precipitation. The minimum
amount of precipitation needed for individual survival is unknown. We
believe that deviation from the timing and amount of precipitation
would impact the resiliency of a population, because soil moisture
would be impacted. This would lead to decreased seed germination,
reduced growth, reduced flowering, and decreased seed production.
Further, the presence of pollinators is needed for effective
fertilization, out-crossing, and seed production in beardless
chinchweed. Habitat resiliency categories for beardless chinchweed are
described in Table 2, below, and in section 3.2 of the SSA report
(Service 2018a).

Table 2--Population Resiliency Category Definitions for Beardless Chinchweed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dormant season
Condition category Subpopulations Abundance Native-dominated (October through
habitat March) precipitation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High (3)....................... Three or more Number of adults No nonnative More than 12 inches of
subpopulations in each plants. winter rain on
per population. population is average during the
>300 individuals. past 5 years as
recorded at the
nearest weather
station.
Moderate (2)................... Two Number of Native plants Between 6.1 and 12
subpopulations individuals in dominate. inches of winter rain
per population. each population on average during the
is 100 to 300 past 5 years as
individuals. recorded at the
nearest weather
station.
Low (1)........................ One subpopulation Number of Mix of nonnative 6 or fewer inches of
per population. individuals in and native winter rain on
each population plants, where average during the
is <100 there is not a past 5 years as
individuals. clear dominance recorded at the
of either. nearest weather
station.
[Oslash]....................... No No individuals Nonnative plants 6 or fewer inches of
subpopulations; are found during dominate the winter rain on
population is surveys. habitat. average during the
extirpated. past 5 years as
recorded at the
nearest weather
station.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maintaining representation in the form of genetic or ecological
diversity is important to maintain the capacity of beardless chinchweed
to adapt to future environmental changes. Representation describes the
ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions.
Representation can be measured by the breadth of genetic or ecological
diversity within and among populations. The more representation, or
diversity a species has, the more it is capable of adapting to changes
(natural or human-caused) in its environment. In the absence of
species-specific genetic and ecological diversity information, we
evaluate representation based on the extent and variability of habitat
characteristics across the geographical range.
Genetic analysis of beardless chinchweed has not been conducted
within or among populations or mountain ranges. However, populations on
different mountain ranges are widely separated, making cross-
pollination highly unlikely, and most of the populations contain small
numbers of individuals. Therefore, there is the potential for genetic
diversity among mountain ranges. However, these populations are
isolated and contain small numbers of individuals. Small, isolated
populations are susceptible to the loss of genetic diversity, genetic
drift, and inbreeding. This could mean that between-population genetic
diversity may be greater than within-population diversity (Smith and
Wayne 1996, p. 333; Lindenmayer and Peakall 2000, p. 200). It is
possible that there has been a loss of genetic diversity in the species
due to the fact that multiple populations are already extirpated.
Currently, there are six extant populations across four widely
separated mountain ranges in the United States, and six populations in
northern Mexico that are presumed extant.
Beardless chinchweed has been reported from both decomposing
granite and limestone substrates. This variability of substrate
preference may be important in maintaining environmental and genetic
diversity. Similarly, the species is found over a relatively wide range
of elevations of 1,158 to 1,737 m (3,799 to 5,699 ft) and vegetation
communities (oak woodlands at higher elevations, and grasslands and oak
savannas at lower elevations), which could be important in terms of
representation. The precise genetic and ecological diversity needed is
unknown, but given the loss of populations, the low number of
individuals in the majority of the populations, and the distance among
populations, it is likely that some diversity has been lost.
Consequently, at a minimum, we likely need to retain populations
throughout the range of the species to maintain the overall potential
genetic and life-history attributes that can buffer the species'
response to environmental changes over time.
Beardless chinchweed needs to have multiple resilient populations
distributed throughout its range to provide for redundancy. Redundancy
describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events,
measured by the number of populations, and their resiliency,
distribution, and connectivity. The more populations, and the wider the
distribution of those populations, the more redundancy the species will
exhibit. Redundancy reduces the risk that a large portion of the
species' range will be negatively affected by a catastrophic natural or
anthropogenic event at a given point in time. Species that are well-
distributed across their historical range are considered less
susceptible to extinction and more likely to be viable than species
confined to a small portion of their range (Carroll et al. 2010,
entire).

[[Page 67066]]

With the known six extant populations being separated by as much as 35
km (21.8 mi) in southern Arizona and even farther with the six
populations believed to be extant in northern Mexico, a localized
stressor such as grazing during flowering would impact only those
groups of plants nearby the activity. Conversely, such distance among
populations reduces connectivity among populations and mountain ranges,
which may be important for genetic exchange and recolonization.
Nonnative plant invasion and repeated, large-scale, moderate and high
severity fires have impacted and will continue to impact many
populations throughout the plant's range. The minimum number of
populations needed to provide for sufficient redundancy is unknown.
However, based on the number of populations now extirpated and the
wide-ranging impacts from nonnatives and wildfire, the species likely
needs to retain its existing population redundancy across multiple
mountain ranges throughout the range to minimize impacts from
catastrophic events.
Bartram's Stonecrop
Bartram's stonecrop is a plant of the Crassulaceae or stonecrop
family (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 2; Moran 1994, p. 192). Acevedo et al.
(2004, entire) investigated the phylogenetic relationship of
Graptopetalum and other genera of Crassulaceae. Their work clearly
separates Bartram's stonecrop from other species (Acevedo et al. 2004,
p. 1101). The Flora of North America (2008, p. 227) recognizes
Graptopetalum and Dudleya as distinct, and recognizes this species as
Bartram's stonecrop in the genus Graptopetalum. Based on this
information as the best available scientific and commercial data, the
Service accepts this taxonomy.
Bartram's stonecrop is a small, succulent (fleshy), acaulescent
(without a stem) perennial plant (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 2; Moran
1994, p. 192). Bartram's stonecrop has a basal rosette that is 7 to 16
centimeters (cm) (2.75 to 6.3 in) wide comprised of 20 or more flat to
concave, smooth, blue-green leaves (Rose 1926, p. 2; Phillips et al.
1982, p. 2; Moran 1994, p. 192). One to seven showy inflorescences
(includes stems, stalks, bracts, and flowers) up to 30.5 cm (12 in) in
height are produced in equilateral panicles (pyramidal loosely branched
flower cluster). The branches of the panicles produce one to six
(usually three) flowers each (Rose 1926, p. 2). The fruits are
follicles (capsule that splits along one side to release seeds), with
minute seeds (0.5 to 0.9 mm (0.02 to 0.04 in) in length)) having little
or no endosperm (tissue surrounding the embryo that provides nutrition;
Shohet 1999, pp. 3, 48). The lifespan of Bartram's stonecrop is thought
to be approximately 5 years (Ferguson, 2017b, tables 1-3; Ferguson
2017, pers. comm.).
The inflorescence stalks of Bartram's stonecrop grow for 30 to 40
days, around July and August, before coming to their full height, with
the flowers then opening primarily between September and November
(Kearney and Peebles 1951, p. 361; Phillips et al. 1982, pp. 2, 7;
Shohet 1999, p. 25). Individual flowers produce both male and female
parts, but the timing of male and female flower stages differs.
Individual flowers open in succession, such that the length of time
each flower remains open overlaps, allowing for various stages of
flowering and fruiting to be simultaneous within an individual plant
for a month or more. The two stages of floral growth may reduce the
probability of self-pollination, though it likely does still occur
(Ferguson 2017, pers. comm.). Flowering is triggered by fall rains and
does not occur during periods of water stress (Shohet 1999, pp. 22, 25,
36, 39).
Bartram's stonecrop requires pollination for reproduction. The
major pollinators of Bartram's stonecrop are Sarcophaga spp. (true
flies) and Musca spp. (house flies), although Apis mellifera (honey
bee) may also play a role in pollination. Other species noted on
Bartram's stonecrop include wasps, butterflies, and Tachinidae and
Bombyliidae flies (Shohet 1999, p. 41; Ferguson 2014, p. 26; Ferguson
2017b, p. 13). Fertilization success is greatest in earliest opening
flowers, possibly due to more pollinators being available earlier in
the season, but having a long period of flowering increases overall
chance of pollination (Shohet 1999, p. 57). Of the seeds produced,
approximately 20 percent are viable under optimal conditions (Shohet
1999, p. 48). Because seedlings (plants less than 1.5 cm [0.6 in] in
diameter) have been located in most populations, we believe pollinator
availability is not a limiting factor for this species. Given their
geographic location in the landscape (i.e., in canyons with springs and
streams), it is possible that seeds are transported by water and that
populations may have been founded by a single individual plant or seed
(Shohet 1999, p. 58). Seeds may also be dispersed via gravity and wind.
There is little information available regarding the seedbank of
Bartram's stonecrop. In general, a seed that is very tiny has evolved a
requirement of sunlight for germination, as they cannot successfully
emerge from deep burial (Venable and Brown 1987, p. 360). Similarly, it
is thought that Bartram's stonecrop seeds reside at the soil surface
beneath the litter (Shohet 1999, p. 48). It is possible that because
the seed is so small, with little endosperm, mycorrhizae (the symbiotic
association of a fungus with the roots of plants) may be required for
seedling establishment and growth, but this has not been studied
(Felger 2017, pers. comm.). Researchers at the Desert Botanical Gardens
have attempted to grow Bartram's stonecrop from seed. They had no
difficulty with seed germination; however, they have experienced high
seedling mortality, perhaps related to a requirement for mycorrhizae
for seedling establishment.
The species typically occurs on rocky outcrops with erodible soils
in deep, narrow canyons in heavy cover of litter and shade within
Madrean woodlands at elevations ranging from 1,067 to 2,042 m (3,500 to
6,700 ft). Madrean woodlands are a forested community dominated by
evergreen oaks, but also containing junipers and pine trees, and
characterized by mild winters and warm wet summers (Brown 1982, p. 59).
Madrean evergreen woodland is typically bounded by semi-desert
grasslands and savanna at warmer, drier sites in the lower elevations,
and by evergreen and broadleaf forests on more mesic and cooler sites
at higher elevation, at north aspect, or near riparian areas. Bartram's
stonecrop root into crevices on rock ledges and cliffs on slopes of
various aspects (Shohet 1999, p. 22; Ferguson 2014, p. 41; NPS 2016, p.
7). In addition, Bartram's stonecrop are almost always located near
water sources (springs, seeps, or intermittent streams), but above the
floodline (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 4; Shohet 1999, p. 22; NPS 2014, p.
2). Plants are typically within 10 m (32.8 ft) from a streambed in the
bottom of canyons on rocky outcrops, but can be much farther on
occasion (Shohet 1999, p. 5; Ferguson 2014, p. 41; NPS 2014, p. 2;
Ferguson 2016a, p. 14). Based on microhabitats in which the species is
typically found, the species' needs include crevices (with or without
soil) for seeds to lodge and germinate, shade and deep leaf litter to
help maintain soil moisture, and a humid microhabitat in this arid
environment. Proximity to water may provide humidity for the plant's
microclimate. The deep, narrow canyons and associated overstory species
provide shade during a portion of the day, creating a cooler
temperature and aiding in maintaining a humid microenvironment. In
addition, the vegetation litter provides retention of

[[Page 67067]]

soil moisture, further promoting the humid microenvironment. The
specific substrate component does not seem to be critical. In addition,
for reestablishment, moist soil for seedbank may be important for this
species following extended periods of drought.
Madrean evergreen woodlands of the sky island mountain ranges have
evolved with frequent, low-severity fire and have warm wet summers and
mild winters. The maximum interval between the relatively widespread
fires typically ranged from about 10 to 30 years in the pine-dominant
forests (Swetnam et al. 2001, p. 4). Precipitation within the sky
island mountain ranges is bimodal, with winter snow and rain, and
summer monsoon rain. Mean annual precipitation in the Madrean woodland
habitat of southern Arizona is 250 to 450 mm (10 to 17 in), with more
than 50 percent occurring in summer. The winter snow and rain coincide
with Bartram's stonecrop seed germination and growth. Winter
precipitation is needed for Bartram's stonecrop germination (although
some germination likely occurs following summer rains), and both summer
(July and August) and fall precipitation (captured partially in the
October and November ``winter'' data) is needed for Bartram's stonecrop
flower production.
Bartram's stonecrop is known to have historically occurred in 33
separate populations within 13 isolated sky island mountain ranges, 10
in southern Arizona and 3 in northern Mexico. While the overall range
of the species is likely unchanged, the number and size of populations
has been reduced. Four populations have become extirpated in the United
States in recent years, and a fifth population has contracted in size.
In three instances, extirpation was associated with the drying of
habitat, which rendered it no longer suitable for the species to
persist; we do not know the cause of extirpation in the fourth
instance. In addition, there have been many changes in the southeastern
Arizona landscape since the 1890s due to intensive cattle grazing,
water development, and fire suppression (e.g., Bahre 1991, entire).
These impacts may have reduced the range or number of populations and
individuals.
We define a population as occurring within the same water course
(i.e., stream) in a sky island range and within the distance
pollinators can travel. A population may consist of one or more
subpopulations of Bartram's stonecrop. These subpopulations are
separated by up to 8 km (5 mi). Within each subpopulation are groupings
of plants. Groupings are separated by up to 1.7 km (1 mi).
As of 2017, when the SSA analysis was completed, there were 29
extant populations across 12 mountain ranges in the United States and
Mexico: 26 extant populations from 9 mountain ranges in southern
Arizona and 3 presumed extant populations from 3 mountain ranges in
northern Mexico (see Table 3, below). Within these 29 populations,
there are approximately 3,756 individuals within about 2 ha (5 ac).
In 2018, four additional populations were located in the United
States in the Rincon Mountains, one additional population was located
in Mexico, and a known population in Mexico, which we did not have
recent data for, was confirmed. The new populations in the United
States included the Upper Rincon Creek population with 38 individuals
(including ``many'' seedlings), Turkey Creek population with 4
individuals (seedlings not differentiated, but photos look like adult
rosettes and flowering), Deer Creek population with 10 individuals
(adult rosettes and flowering), and Chiminea Tributary population with
13 plants (seedlings not differentiated). In Sonora, Mexico, a new
population (Mesa Tres Rios population) with 80 living and 28 dead
plants was found in Mesa Tres Rios. In the R[iacute]o Piedras Verdes
near Colonia Pacheo area of Chihuahua, seven individuals were located,
confirming the presence of an extant population ``near Colonia
Pacheco''; it is unknown if this is the exact historical location.
Seedlings were not differentiated in either of the Mexico surveys. In
total, only 145 new individuals were found, including seedlings, with
65 from the United States and 80 from Mexico. All but one population
(Mesa Tres Rios) are small populations with fewer than 150 individuals.
The number of extant populations as of 2018 is 34 across 13 mountain
ranges in the United States and Mexico.

Table 3--Current Status of Bartram's Stonecrop Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpopulation
Mountain ranges Population Population status Subpopulation status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baboquivari Mountains........... Brown Canyon...... Extant............ Brown Canyon...... Extant.
Thomas Canyon..... Extant............ Thomas Canyon..... Extant.
Chiricahua Mountains............ Echo Canyon....... Extant............ Echo Canyon....... Extant.
Rhyolite Canyon... Extant.
Sugarloaf Mountain Extant.
Indian Creek...... Extirpated........ Indian Creek Extirpated.
Canyon.
Dragoon Mountains............... Carlink Canyon.... Extirpated........ Carlink Canyon.... Extirpated.
Jordan Canyon..... Extant............ Jordan Canyon..... Extant.
Sheepshead........ Extant............ Sheepshead........ Extant.
Slavin Gulch...... Extant............ Lower Slavin Gulch Extant.
Stronghold Canyon Extant............ Cochise Spring.... Extant.
East. Park Canyon....... Extant.
Stronghold Canyon Extant............ Rockfellow Dome Extant.
West. Trail. Extant.
Stronghold Canyon Extant.
West.
Stronghold Canyon--
hanging canyon
drainage.
Empire Mountains................ Empire Mountains.. Extirpated........ Empire Mountains.. Extirpated.
Mule Mountains.................. Juniper Flat...... Extant............ Juniper Flat and Extant.
vicinity.
Pajarito/Atascosa Mountains..... Alamo Canyon...... Extant............ Alamo Canyon...... Extant.
Holden Canyon..... Extant............ Holden Canyon..... Extant.
Sycamore Canyon... Extant............ Montana Peak Extant.
Vicinity. Extant.
Montana Canyon.... Extant.
Mule Ridge........

[[Page 67068]]

Penasco Canyon; Extant.
below dam. Extant.
Summit Motorway... Extant.
Sycamore Canyon...
Warsaw Canyon..... Extant............ Warsaw/Old Glory Extant.
Canyons.
Patagonia Mountains............. Alum Gulch........ Extant............ Alum Gulch........ Extant.
Flux Canyon....... Extant.
Rincon Mountains................ Chimenea-Madrona Extant............ Chimenea Canyon + Extant.
Canyons. Manning Camp
Trail + Madrona
Canyon.
Happy Valley North Extirpated........ Happy Valley North Extirpated.
Happy Valley South Extant............ Happy Valley South Extant.
Upper Rincon Creek Extant............ Upper Rincon Creek Extant.
Turkey Creek...... Extant............ Turkey Creek...... Extant.
Deer Creek........ Extant............ Deer Creek........ Extant.
Chiminea Tributary Extant............ Chiminea Tributary Extant.
Santa Rita Mountains............ Adobe Canyon...... Extant............ Adobe Canyon...... Extant.
Gardner Canyon.... Extant............ Cave Creek Canyon. Extant.
Gardner Canyon.... Extant.
Sawmill Canyon.... Extant.
Josephine Canyon.. Extant............ Bond Canyon....... Extant.
Josephine Canyon.. Extant.
Madera Canyon..... Extant............ Madera Canyon..... Extant.
Squaw Gulch....... Extant............ Squaw Gulch....... Extant.
Sycamore Canyon... Extant............ Sycamore Canyon... Extant.
Temporal Gulch.... Extant............ Temporal Gulch.... Extant.
Upper Jones Canyon Extant.
Walker Canyon..... Extant............ Big Casa Blanca Extant.
Canyon. Extant.
Walker Canyon
Basin.
Whetstone Mountains............. Death Trap Canyon. Extant............ Death Trap Springs Extant.
French Joe Canyon. Extant............ French Joe Canyon. Extant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEXICO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Las Avispas, Sonora...... Sierra Las Presumed Extant... Sierra Las Presumed Extant.
Avispas, Sonora. Avispas, (Nogales
County).
Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua... Sierra La Extant............ Near Colonia Extant.
Escuadra, Pacheco (in the
Chihuahua. Municipio Nuevo
Casas Grandes).
Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua... Sierra La Presumed Extant... Cuarenta Casas Presumed Extant.
Estancia, (northwest of Las
Chihuahua. Varas, Municipio
Madera).
Sierra Los Mojones.............. Mesa Tres Rios.... Extant............ Mesa Tres Rios.... Extant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The number of populations within each sky island mountain ranges
from one population (e.g., Mule Mountains) to as many as eight
populations (e.g., Santa Rita Mountains). Each of these populations
contains from one to eight subpopulations, which can be separated by up
to 8 km (5 mi). Within each subpopulation, plants grow in groups or
clusters of one to eight groups, which are separated by up to 1.7 km (1
mi). Within each subpopulation, plants grow across an area of 1 to 140
m (3.3 to 459 ft) (Ferguson 2014, entire; Ferguson 2016a, p. 14).
Bartram's stonecrop typically occurs in small populations with
limited numbers of individuals. Most populations contain fewer than 100
plants (Ferguson 2014, entire; Ferguson 2016a, entire), but
occasionally hundreds of plants can be found within a single
population. The number of individuals in a given population can vary
greatly from year to year and from season to season, depending on
weather and stressors present (Ferguson 2017b, pp. 8, 15).
For Bartram's stonecrop to maintain viability, its populations or
some representative portion thereof must be resilient. Resiliency
describes the ability of populations to withstand stochastic events
(arising from random factors). We can measure resiliency based on
metrics of population health (for example, germination versus death
rates and population size). Highly resilient populations are better
able to withstand disturbances such as random fluctuations in
germination rates (demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall
(environmental stochasticity), or the effects of anthropogenic
activities. Resilient Bartram's stonecrop populations must be large
enough that stochastic events do not eliminate the entire population. A
highly resilient population of Bartram's stonecrop consists of multiple
subpopulations, with a large number of individuals in each
subpopulation. Highly resilient Bartram's stonecrop populations must
also produce and disperse seeds, establish seedlings that survive, and
maintain mature reproductive individuals in the population; recruitment
should exceed or be equal to mortality. This allows for shared
pollinators and seed dispersal between subpopulations and groups within
the population, which can allow the population to recover from
disturbance events and maintain or increase genetic diversity.
Population resiliency categories for Bartram's stonecrop are described
in section 3.2 of the SSA report (Service 2018b, entire).
In addition to the above demographic needs, populations also need
habitat elements for resiliency. Based on where the species has
typically been found, a resilient population needs riparian
characteristics (i.e., proximity to water and associated vegetation),

[[Page 67069]]

precipitation, shade, and bedrock or soil pockets in rock ledges and
cliffs. Precipitation is needed to maintain soil moisture, cooler
temperatures, and humidity in the microenvironment; shade from trees,
canyon walls, and leaf litter aid in moisture retention. Small
population size has the potential to decrease Bartram's stonecrop's
population resiliency, as all stressors are exacerbated in populations
with only a small number of individuals. Area of occupied habitat,
abundance, number of subpopulations, and recruitment all affect
population resiliency. Habitat resiliency categories for Bartram's
stonecrop are described in Table 4, below, and in section 3.2 of the
SSA report (Service 2018b).

Table 4--Population Resiliency Category Definitions for Bartram's Stonecrop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population factors Habitat factors
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition category Winter (October
Subpopulations Abundance Recruitment Riparian elements through March) Shade
precipitation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High (3)............ Three or more Number of adults in Populations contain Water is within 10 m More than 12 inches Overstory cover of
subpopulations of each population is more seedlings from individuals or of winter rain on Juniperus, Quercus,
plants/population. >300 individuals. (<1.5 cm [0.6 in]) riparian vegetation average during the Pinus or other is
than dying present indicating past 5 years as >80%.
individuals. subsurface water recorded at the
nearby. nearest weather
station.
Moderate (2)........ Two subpopulations Number of Populations contain Water at or near the Between 6.1 and 12 Overstory cover of
of plants/ individuals in each an equal number of surface (riparian inches of winter Juniperus, Quercus,
population. population is 150 seedlings (<1.5 cm vegetation present rain on average Pinus or other is
to 300 individuals. [0.6 in]) to dying indicating during the past 5 between 50 and 80%.
individuals. subsurface water) years as recorded
is within 10-20 m at the nearest
from individuals. weather station.
Low (1)............. One subpopulation of Number of Populations contain Water at or near the 6 or fewer inches of Overstory cover of
plants/population. individuals in each fewer seedlings surface (riparian winter rain on Juniperus, Quercus,
population is <150 (<1.5 cm [0.6 in]) vegetation present average during the Pinus or other is
individuals. than dying indicating past 5 years as between 20 and 50%.
individuals. subsurface water) recorded at the
is within 20-30 m nearest weather
from individuals. station.
[Oslash]............ No subpopulations... No individuals are Population is made Streambed near 6 or fewer inches of Overstory cover has
found during up primarily of plants is dry and winter rain on been removed.
surveys in dead and dying invaded by non- average during the
appropriate individuals that do riparian plant past 5 years as
microhabitat. not produce seed or species indicating recorded at the
no individuals shift of vegetation nearest weather
found. community and station.
complete loss of
suitable habitat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maintaining representation in the form of genetic or ecological
diversity is important to maintain the capacity of Bartram's stonecrop
to adapt to future environmental changes. Representation describes the
ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions.
Representation can be measured by the breadth of genetic or ecological
diversity within and among populations. The more representation, or
diversity, a species has, the more it is capable of adapting to changes
(natural or human-caused) in its environment. In the absence of
species-specific genetic and ecological diversity information, we
evaluate representation based on the extent and variability of habitat
characteristics across the geographical range.
Genetic analysis of Bartram's stonecrop has not been conducted
within or among populations or mountain ranges. However, populations on
different mountain ranges are widely separated (ranging from roughly 14
to 42 km (8.7 to 26 mi) apart), making cross-pollination highly
unlikely, and most of the populations contain small numbers of
individuals. Therefore, there is the potential for genetic diversity
among mountain ranges. Because multiple populations have been
extirpated, it is possible that there has been a loss of genetic
diversity. There may be genetic diversity between populations within
and among the sky island mountain ranges due to response to elevational
and other environmental differences between locations. As such,
maintaining representation in the form of genetic diversity across
multiple populations and sky island mountain ranges may be important to
the capacity of Bartram's stonecrop to adapt to future environmental
change.
The species is found over a relatively wide range of elevations of
1,067 to 2,042 m (3,500 to 6,700 ft) and vegetation communities (oak
woodlands at higher elevations, and grasslands and oak savannas at
lower elevations), which could be important in terms of representation.
Such variability in elevation could aid in survival of future
environmental changes, such as warming temperatures or decreased
precipitation from climate change. At a minimum, we likely need to
retain populations throughout the geographic and elevational ranges of
the species to maintain the overall potential genetic and environmental
diversity that can maximize the species' response to environmental
changes over time.
Bartram's stonecrop needs to have multiple resilient populations
distributed throughout its range to provide for redundancy such that a
catastrophic event will not result in the loss of all populations.
Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic
events, measured by the number of populations, and their resiliency,
distribution, and connectivity. The more populations, and the wider the
distribution of those populations, the more redundancy the species will
exhibit. Redundancy reduces the risk that a large portion of the
species' range will be negatively affected by a catastrophic natural or
anthropogenic event at a given point in time. Species that are well-
distributed across their historical range are considered less
susceptible to extinction and more likely to be viable than species
confined to a small portion of their range (Carroll et al. 2010,
entire). There is little connectivity potential between the sky island
mountain ranges (separated from roughly 14 to 42 km (8.7 to 26 mi)
apart); therefore, a localized stressor such as dewatering from a mine
or a high-severity wildfire would impact only those populations near
the activity. Regional drought and altered fire regime could impact
many populations throughout the plant's range. There are 34 populations
spread throughout the range of the species, many with multiple
subpopulations. Conversely, such distance among populations reduces
connectivity among populations and mountain ranges, which may be
important for genetic exchange and recolonization. At a minimum, the
species likely requires retaining population redundancy across multiple
sky island mountain ranges throughout

[[Page 67070]]

the species' range to minimize impacts from catastrophic events.

Summary of Biological Status and Stressors

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' because of any of the 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.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species--such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as the Services
can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species'
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
We completed a comprehensive assessment of the biological status of
beardless chinchweed and Bartram's stonecrop, and prepared an SSA
report for each species (Service 2018a and 2018b, entire), which
provides a thorough account of the species' overall viability. We
define viability here as the ability of the species to persist over the
long term and, conversely, to avoid extinction. In the following
discussion, we summarize the conclusions of the SSA reports, which can
be accessed at Docket FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104 on http://www.regulations.gov
and at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm.

Beardless Chinchweed

Several stressors influence whether beardless chinchweed
populations will grow to maximize habitat occupancy, which increases
the resiliency of a population to stochastic events. We evaluated the
past, current, and future stressors (i.e., negative changes in the
resources needed by beardless chinchweed) that are affecting what
beardless chinchweed needs for viability. These stressors are described
in detail in chapter 4 of the SSA report (Service 2018a). Stressors
that have the potential to affect beardless chinchweed population
resiliency include:
Loss of habitat due to invasion by nonnative species;
Altered fire regime exacerbated by invasion by nonnative
species;
Altered precipitation, drought, and temperature;
Erosion, sedimentation, and burial from road and trail
maintenance, mining, livestock, wildlife, and post-wildfire runoff;
Grazing from wildlife and livestock; and
Small population size exacerbating all other stressors.
The stressors that pose the largest risk to future viability of the
species are: (1) Loss of habitat caused by the invasion of nonnative
grasses that compete for space, water, light, and nutrients and that
alter wildfire regimes; and (2) small population size (fewer than 50
individuals), which potentially causes other stressors to seriously
damage or extirpate populations. The size of fewer than 50 individuals
as a small population was determined by assessing the range of known
population sizes. Much of the historical range of beardless chinchweed
in both the United States and Mexico has been altered by an invasion of
nonnative grasses and herbaceous plants. Although there are many
nonnative plant species growing in historical beardless chinchweed
habitats in both the United States and Mexico, two species in
particular are most problematic to beardless chinchweed at this time:
Lehman's lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) and rose natal (Melinis
repens). Both of these species are strong competitors on southern
exposures where beardless chinchweed occurs.
Habitat Loss Caused by Nonnative Grasses
Lehman's lovegrass, a nonnative grass from South Africa, has
numerous

[[Page 67071]]

competative advantages over native grasses in southern Arizona.
Lehman's lovegrass resprouts from roots and tiller nodes not killed by
hot fire, is not hampered by the reduction in mycorrhizae associated
with fire and erosion, is able to respond to winter precipitation when
natives grasses are dormant, is able to produce copious seed earlier
than native grasses, maintains larger seed banks than native grasses,
and has higher seedling survival and establishment than native grasses
during periods of drought (Anable 1990, p. 49; Anable et al. 1992, p.
182; Robinett 1992, p. 101; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000, pp. 94-95;
Crimmins and Comrie 2004, p. 464; Geiger and McPherson 2005, p. 896;
Schussman et al. 2006, p. 589; O'Dea 2007, p. 149; Archer and Predick
2008, p. 26; Mathias et al. 2013, entire). This species outcompetes
native grasses for water, light, and nutrients, forming nonnative-
dominated grasslands that reduce structural, species, and spatial
diversity and that produce two to four times the biomass of native
grasslands (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 70; McPherson 1995, pp.
136-137; VanDevender et al. 1997, p. 4; Huang et al. 2009, pp. 903-
904;). This change in vegetation structure results in a higher fuel
load that is highly lignified (long-lasting through slow decomposition)
and results in more frequent fires that have longer flames, faster
rates of spread, and higher severity and frequency than historical low-
intensity burns of native desert grasslands (Anable et al. 1992, p.
186; Dennet et al. 2000, pp. 22-23; Williams and Baruch 2000, p. 128;
Crimmins and Comrie 2004, p. 464). In addition, Lehman's lovegrass-
dominated grasslands recover quickly from fire, as fires scarify the
ample seeds and remove canopy, allowing for high seedling emergence
(Cable 1965, p. 328; Anable 1990, p. 15; Roundy et al. 1992, p. 81;
McPherson 1995, p. 137; Biedenbender and Roundy 1996, p. 160).
Rose natal, a native of Africa and Madagascar, is invasive in many
locations, including southern Arizona and northern New Mexico (Stevens
and Fehmi 2009, p. 379; Romo et al. 2012, p. 34). Similar to Lehman's
lovegrass, rose natal is capable of growing in low moisture situations
and has many advantages to outcompete native grasses of southern
Arizona, such as prolific seed production and culms that root from the
nodes (Stokes et al. 2011, p. 527). This aggressive grass displaces
native vegetation in shrublands and oak stands, and increases fire
frequency (Romo et al. 2012, p. 35; Center for Agriculture and
Biosciences International 2017, entire).
In addition, several other African grasses (e.g., Eragrostis
cilianensis [stinkgrass], Eragrostis curvula [Boer lovegrass],
Eragrostis echinochloidea [African lovegrass], and Dichanthium
annulatum [Kleberg's bluestem]) have been documented in southern
Arizona and northern Mexico (Van Devender and Reina 2005, p. 160;
NatureServe, entire; Fire Effects Information System, entire; SEINet,
entire), as has the Asian grass, Bothriochloa ischaemum (yellow
bluestem). Studies of other nonnative grasses in Mexico show rapid
expansion and degradation of native communities, with the potential to
invade large areas of northern Mexico (Arriaga et al. 2004, p. 1504).
There are no beardless chinchweed populations in the United States that
are more than 1 km (0.6 mi), and no beardless chinchweed populations in
Mexico that are more than 27 km (16.8 mi), from documented nonnative
grasses (SEINet, entire; Heitholt 2017, pers. comm.). Because we have
seen nonnative infestations in the field in locations not shown in
SEINet, we believe only a small portion of nonnative plants are
reported into the SEINet system in either country. Based on the above
information, we believe that it is unlikely any beardless chinchweed
population is free of nonnative plants. This encroachment of nonnatives
has reduced beardless chinchweed population numbers and habitat, and as
nonnatives continue to encroach on beardless chinchweed populations,
the number of individuals and available habitat will continue to
decrease.
Altered Fire Regime
The desert grasslands, oak savannas, and oak woodlands of southern
Arizona historically had large-scale, low-severity fire roughly every
10 to 20 years and following periods of adequate moisture (McPherson
and Weltzin 2000, p. 5; Brooks and Pyke 2002, p. 6; McDonald and
McPherson 2011a, p. 385; Fryer and Leunsmann 2012, entire). Fires now
are more frequent and intense due to the unnaturally dense and evenly
spaced canopies of nonnative-dominated communities (as compared to more
open and heterogeneous native-dominated grasslands), coupled with more
frequent fire starts from recreationist and cross-border violators
(Anable et al. 1992, p. 186; D'Antonio and Vitousek1992, p. 75; Dennet
et al. 2000, pp. 22-23; Williams and Baruch 2000, p. 128; Crimmins and
Comrie 2004, p. 464; Emerson 2010, pp. 15, 17; United States Government
Accountability Office 2011, p. 1; Wildland Fire Lesson's Learned Center
2011, entire). Nonnative grasses have higher seed output and large seed
banks, earlier green-up in the spring, and greater biomass production
than native grasses; all of these characteristics help to perpetuate a
grass-fire cycle (e.g., D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73; Zouhar et
al. 2008, pp. 17, 21; Steidl et al. 2013, p. 529).
In many locations in southern Arizona in recent decades, repeat
fires have occurred within short periods of time, aided by the
dominance of nonnative grasses in the landscape. For example, in the
Pajarito and Atascosa Mountains area, multiple fires burned the
landscape between 2008 and 2016 (Figure 4.4 in Service 2018a). This
landscape is now dominated by both nonnative Lehman's lovegrass and
rose natal (Service 2014c, entire; Heitholt 2017, entire), and many
historically documented locations that supported beardless chinchweed
have not been found again (Service 2014c, entire; Fernandez 2017, pers.
comm.; Haskins and Murray 2017, p. 4). High-severity wildfires burn
hotter than fires that beardless chinchweed evolved with; consequently,
we believe the plant is not capable of surviving high-severity fires.
Altered Precipitation, Drought, and Temperature
Altered precipitation timing and form (snow versus rain), as well
as reduced winter and spring precipitation and prolonged drought, are
currently occurring and projected to increase or be altered from normal
in the Southwest (Garfin et al. 2014, entire). Recently there has been
a decrease in the amount of snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and increased
drought severity in the Southwest (Garfin et al. 2013, entire; Garfin
2013b p. 465). Further, more wintertime precipitation is falling as
rain rather than snow in the western United States (IPCC 2013, p. 204;
Garfin 2013b p. 465). This means that the amount of runoff in the
spring when snow melts is reduced, as is soil moisture. Precipitation
is bimodal with the mountain ranges where beardless chinchweed occurs,
with dormant season snow and rain, and growing season monsoon rains
(CLIMAS 2014, entire). We believe that precipitation during October
through March is important for beardless chinchweed germination and
growth. In addition, beardless chinchweed does not flower until it
reaches a height of more than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) tall; without sufficient
precipitation, beardless chinchweed may be unable to attain adequate
size for reproduction (Phillips et al. 1982, p.

[[Page 67072]]

8). Further, reduced precipitation, change in the timing and type of
precipitation, and prolonged drought impact soil and ambient moisture
availability for beardless chinchweed germination, growth, and
flowering. In addition, due to increased nonnative competition during
times of reduced precipitation and drought, impacts from these
stressors to beardless chinchweed would be exacerbated (Anable 1990, p.
49; Robinett 1992, p. 101; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000, pp. 94-95;
Geiger and McPherson 2005, p. 896; Schussman et al. 2006, p. 589;
Archer and Predick 2008, p. 26; Mathias et al. 2013, entire).
Under a continuation of A2-high emissions scenario, reduced winter
and spring precipitation is consistently projected for the southern
part of the Southwest by 2100, as part of the general global
precipitation reduction in subtropical areas (Garfin et al. 2014, p.
465). Analyses of the southwestern United States indicate future
drying, primarily due to a decrease in winter precipitation under both
the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios (IPCC 2013, p. 1080). The annual
projected changes in precipitation for 2025 to 2049 under the RCP 4.5
and 8.5 scenarios range from an increase of 1.3 cm/month (0.5 in/month)
to a decrease of 1.5 cm/month (0.5 in/month), with a an annual average
of no change compared to 1981 to 2010 (USGS 2019, entire). However,
winter and spring precipitation under both emission scenarios is
projected to decrease from -0.3 to -1 cm (-0.1 to -0.4 inches) (MACA
2019) or a decrease up to 10 percent for 2016-2035 relative to 1986-
2005 under RCP 4.5 (IPCC 2013, p. 985). The decrease in winter and
spring precipitation would likely be greater under the RCP 8.5
scenario. There is some evidence from comparing observations with
simulations of the recent past that climate models might be
underestimating the magnitude of changes in precipitation in many
regions (IPCC 2013, p. 986). The climate-model-projected simulations
indicate that a high degree of variability of annual precipitation will
continue during the coming century, for both low and high emission
scenarios (Garfin 2013, p. 110). This suggests that the Southwest will
remain susceptible to unusually wet spells and, on the other hand, will
remain prone to occasional drought episodes (Garfin 2013, p. 110).
However, decrease in soil moisture across much of the Southwest is
projected under both scenarios by mid-century, due to increased
evaporation (IPCC 2013, p. 1259). Late winter-spring mountain snowpack
in the Southwest is predicted to continue to decline over the 21st
century under the high emission scenario (A2), mostly because of
projected increased temperature (Garfin et al. 2013, p. 6). Reduced
rain and snow, earlier snowmelt, and drying tendencies cause a
reduction in late-spring and summer runoff. Together these effects,
along with increases in evaporation, result in lower soil moisture by
early summer (Gafrin 2013, p. 117).
Climatic events such as snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and increased
drought are regional and will impact all populations of beardless
chinchweed. Precipitation timing and amount impacts the germination,
growth, and flowering of beardless chinchweed, resulting in the loss of
individuals and recruitment, and overall reducing the population size.
In the Southwest, temperatures increased 2.7 degrees Celcius
([deg]C) (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) plus or minus 0.9 [deg]C
(0.5 [deg]F), between 1901 and 2010, and more heat waves occurred over
the Southwest during 2001-2010 compared to average occurrences in the
20th century. In the future, under RCP 4.5, the annual maximum
temperature is projected to increase by 5 [deg]C (2.7 [deg]F) for 2025-
2049 and 7.3 [deg]C (4 [deg]F) for 2050-2074, and 5 [deg]C (2.7 [deg]F)
for 2025-2049 and 10.4 [deg]C (5.7 [deg]F) for 2050-2074 under RCP 8.5,
all relative to 1981-2010 (USGS 2019, entire). When temperatures rise,
as has been occurring in recent decades and as is projected to continue
into the future, evapotranspiration rates also increase and soil
moisture decreases. Along with projected warming and increased
evapotranspiration, it is highly likely that droughts will become more
severe (Garfin 2013, pp. 137-138). A decrease of up to 4 percent soil
moisture is projected under RCP 4.5 scenario for 2016-2035, relative to
1986-2005. The decrease in soil moisture would likely be greater under
the RCP 8.5 scenario. Further, the evaporation deficient increases
under RCP 4.5 and increases more in RCP 8.5 in 2025 to 2049, relative
to 1981 to 2010. Based on the high emissions scenario, the current 100-
year drought will become commonplace in the second half of this century
and future droughts will be much more severe than those previously
recorded (Garfin 2013, p. 138). This projection of intensified drought
conditions on the Colorado River is not due to changes in
precipitation, but rather due directly to warming and its effect on
reducing soil moisture (Garfin 2013, p. 138). Physiological effects of
CO2 may involve both the stomatal response, which acts to
restrict transpiration, and an increase in plant growth and leaf area,
which acts to increase evapotranspiration (IPCC 2013, p. 986). An
increase in evapotranspiration results in water loss from the plant and
increases stress on the plant. This increase in stress impacts
photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration, water use efficiency, leaf
conductance, growth rate, vigor, and gas exchange. These impacts result
in reduced growth, flowering, and seed production and, therefore, in
reduced overall recruitment and population numbers.
Although rare species in the southwestern United States evolved
with drought, recent changes in temperature, and rainfall patterns
present stressful conditions of increased magnitude greater than what
the species faced historically and raise the question of whether the
species, can persist. Some species may shift their distributions in
response to warming of the climate (McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6070).
However, it is highly unlikely that beardless chinchweed would be able
to naturally shift its range to keep up with current and high projected
rates of climate change, due to its overall population decline and
inability to maintain current populations. Since plants are not mobile,
expanding the distribution of this species is dependent on seed
dispersal. Further, extant populations are small, which limit the
amount of seed production for dispersal. It is highly unlikely that
under elevated environmental stress associated with climate change, the
species would be able to both maintain populations and also colonize
new areas with more suitable climate conditions. Thus localized
extirpations over portions of the beardless chinchweed range could
result (lower elevations), and, in other portions of its distribution,
the occupied range (higher elevation) may expand, depending upon
habitat availability.
Erosion, Sedimentation, and Burial
General road maintenance and widening could disturb populations
along road cuts and create erosion (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 8). Of the
six extant U.S. populations, the Ruby Road and Scotia Canyon
populations, and the State of Texas Mine subpopulation of Coronado
National Memorial occur along roadcuts; similarly, the Visitor Center
subpopulation of the Coronado National Memorial population contains
some plants that occur along a maintained trail. These plants could be
damaged or removed by road or trail maintenance. Impacts from such
stressors could be profound for

[[Page 67073]]

populations with fewer than 50 individuals. In addition, nonnative
plant introduction and spread often occur in areas of disturbance, such
as along roadways, along trails, in mining sites, and in areas of
recreational use (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 421; Brooks 2007, pp.
153-154; Anderson et al. 2015, p. 1).
The McCleary Canyon--Gunsight Pass population is in the path of a
proposed alignment of a secondary access road for the proposed Rosemont
Mine (Westland 2010, p. iv), and the McCleary Canyon--Wasp Canyon
population is within the processing facility portion of the proposed
Rosemont Mine (Westland 2017, entire). Collectively, these plants
represent approximately 33 percent of the total beardless chinchweed
populations known across the U.S. range and 16 percent of all known
individuals. The proposed road alignment would eliminate these
populations.
Dust from mining operations or recreational travel can impact
beardless chinchweed populations along dirt roadways. Dust may
negatively affect plant growth and vigor as a result of changes in
physiological and biochemical processes (e.g., photosynthesis,
respiration, transpiration, water use efficiency, leaf conductance,
growth rate, vigor, and gas exchange) and reduced pollination (Phillips
et al. 1982, pp. 9-10; Chibuike and Obiora 2014, p. 1; Waser et al.
2017, p. 90). These impacts could affect those populations within 30
meters (98 feet) of roads and mine sites (Waser et al. 2017, p. 90).
This stressor could impact four of the six populations in the United
States.
Grazing
There are two different perspectives on the influence of grazing on
beardless chinchweed:
(1) Wildfire historically maintained native open habitat where
beardless chinchweed occurred, but with fire suppression, overgrazing
may have alternatively provided native open habitats for this species
to expand its range in the early 1900s, even without frequent fire
(Schmalzel 2015, p. 2), due to open space being created and maintained
by cattle; and
(2) Grazing pressure may have contributed to the species' rareness
(Keil 1982, entire) due to reduced reproduction and alteration in
habitat.
Regardless, grazing that occurs in small populations (fewer than 50
individuals) of beardless chinchweed would have a negative population-
level impact through the reduction of flowers and seeds, and possibly
individuals. Beardless chinchweed does not flower until it reaches a
height of more than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) tall, suggesting that grazing in
summer or fall when the plant is growing and flowering could reduce
seed production and recruitment.
Small Populations
Small population size has the potential to affect beardless
chinchweed' population resiliency, as all stressors are exacerbated in
populations with only a small number of individuals (fewer than 50).
Known population sizes of beardless chinchweed were used to quantify
the size of a small population. Small populations are less able to
recover from losses caused by random environmental changes (Shaffer and
Stein 2000, pp. 308-310), such as fluctuations in reproduction
(demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall (environmental
stochasticity), or changes in the frequency or severity of
disturbances, such as wildfires. Five of the six extant beardless
chinchweed populations in the United States contain fewer than 50
individuals. Based on populations in the United States, which are
mostly small and occur in habitat dominated by nonnatives, we believe
that the six populations in Mexico are of similar size but may be in
worse condition, because of limited native habitat management, similar
climate change impacts, equally frequent wildfires, and likely more
impacts from grazing. Loss due to mining, erosion, road and trail
maintenance, trampling, grazing, or other stressors mentioned above are
exacerbated in small populations, and have the potential to seriously
damage or completely remove these small populations. Synergistic
interactions among wildfire, nonnative grasses, decreased
precipitation, and increased temperatures cumulatively and cyclically
impact beardless chinchweed, and all stressors are exacerbated in small
populations.
Current Condition of Beardless Chinchweed
Since 1962, we are aware of nine populations and one subpopulation
of beardless chinchweed in the United States that have become
extirpated. Currently, six extant beardless chinchweed populations are
spread across four mountain ranges in southern Arizona: The Atascosa-
Pajarito, Huachuca, Santa Rita, and the Canelo Hills. These six
populations consist of 387 individuals spread across less than 2 ha (5
ac). Additionally, six populations have been reported from northern
Mexico, but this information is from 1940 or earlier.
Population Resiliency of Beardless Chinchweed
To help determine current condition, we assessed each population in
terms of its resiliency. Our analysis of the past, current, and future
stressors on the resources that beardless chinchweed needs for long-
term viability revealed that there are a number of stressors impacting
this species. All beardless chinchweed populations likely contain
nonnative grasses. Further, altered fire regime has the potential to
affect all populations. This altered fire regime enhances the spread of
nonnatives, and all populations of beardless chinchweed contain
nonnatives. Consequently, fire will aid in the spread of nonnatives,
and is currently a risk to all populations of beardless chinchweed and
will be further exacerbated by nonnative grasses in the near future
(approximately 10 years). Altered precipitation, increased
temperatures, increased evapotranspiration, decreased soil moisture,
and decreased winter and spring precipitation are current and ongoing
regional actions that are impacting all populations of beardless
chinchweed. These environmental conditions exacerbate an altered fire
regime, which in turn further drives the spread of nonnatives. In
addition, nonnative grasses have competitive advantage over native
grasses during periods of drought.
Road maintenance is likely resulting in the direct killing of
individuals in three populations (Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon, and
Coronado National Memorial). In addition, all individuals in these
three populations are currently being impacted by dust from the road.
These three populations are already of low resiliency. Two additional
populations (McCleary Canyon--Gunsight Pass and McCleary Canyon--Wasp
Canyon) will be impacted by Rosemont mining operations and dust in the
near future (approximately 10 years; Westland 2010, p. iv). One of
these populations is already of low resiliency, and the other is of
moderate resiliency. Eleven of the 12 populations (92 percent) are
small population (fewer than 50 individuals). Synergistic interactions
among wildfire, nonnative grasses, decreased precipitation, and
increased temperatures cumulatively and cyclically impact beardless
chinchweed, and all stressors are exacerbated in small populations. Of
the six extant populations, two are moderately resilient and four are
in low resiliency (Table 5, below). Population resiliency categories
are described in Table 2, above, and in the SSA report (Service 2018a).

[[Page 67074]]

Table 5--Beardless Chinchweed Current Population Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Mountain range/country Population individuals Current condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, USA....... Pena Blanca Lake......... 0 Extirpated.
Ruby Road................ 10 Low.
Summit Motorway.......... 0 Extirpated.
Canelo Hills, USA...................... Audubon Research Ranch... 37 Low.
Copper Mountain.......... 0 Extirpated.
Harshaw Creek............ 0 Extirpated.
Lampshire Well........... 0 Extirpated.
Huachuca Mountains, USA................ Scotia Canyon............ 40 Low.
Coronado National 241 Low.
Memorial.
Joe's Canyon Trail....... 0 Extirpated.
Patagonia Mountains, USA............... Flux Canyon.............. 0 Extirpated.
Washington Camp.......... 0 Extirpated.
Santa Rita Mountains, USA.............. Box Canyon............... 0 Extirpated.
McCleary Canyon--Gunsight 32 Moderate.
Pass.
McCleary Canyon--Wasp 32 Low.
Canyon.
Chihuahua, Mexico...................... Batopililas, Rio Mayo.... ~10 Low.
Guasaremos, Rio Mayo..... ~10 Low.
Sonora, Mexico......................... Canon de la Petaquilla... ~10 Low.
North of Horconcitos..... ~10 Low.
Canyon Estrella, Sierra ~10 Low.
de los Cendros;
southeast of Tesopaco.
Los Conejos, Rio Mayo.... ~10 Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beardless Chinchweed Representation
No genetic studies have been conducted within or between the 21
historical populations of beardless chinchweed in southern Arizona and
Mexico. Mountain ranges that have only one or two populations, or have
only have one subpopulation per population, or low numbers of
individuals per population with several miles between mountain ranges,
may not be as genetically diverse because pollination or transport of
seeds between populations may be very limited or nonexistent. Five of
the six extant U.S. populations do not have multiple subpopulations.
The Coronado National Memorial population has two subpopulations. The
six extant U.S. populations are separated geographically into the
Atascosa-Pajarito, Huachuca, and Santa Rita Mountains, and the Canelo
Hills, which are separated by 16 to 61 km (9.9 to 37.9 mi). There is
likely genetic diversity among mountain ranges, but reduced genetic
diversity within populations. Further, overall genetic diversity is
likely reduced given that some populations are extirpated.
The 15 historical beardless chinchweed populations in the United
States range in elevation from 1,158 m (3,799 ft) to 1,737 m (5,699
ft). Of these, eight (about 53 percent) fall below 457 m (1,500 ft)
elevation. Of these eight, six have become extirpated in recent
decades. This essentially indicates a loss at this lower elevational
range and possibly loss of some local adaptation to warmer or dryer
environments and genetic differentiation among populations.
In the Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon, and Coronado National Memorial
populations, plants have been reported over many decades, indicating
that these populations may have the genetic and environmental diversity
needed to adapt to changing conditions. Note, however, that both the
Ruby Road and Scotia Canyon populations have been reduced in size in
the past 30 years, and we have no previous count data at Coronado
National Memorial for comparison.
Beardless Chinchweed Redundancy
The beardless chinchweed populations in the United States and
Mexico are naturally fragmented between mountain ranges. Currently, six
extant beardless chinchweed U.S. populations are spread across
Atascosa-Pajarito, Huachuca, and Santa Rita Mountains and the Canelo
Hills. The Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains and the Canelo Hills have only
one extant population each, while the Santa Rita and Huachuca Mountains
have two extant populations each. These mountain ranges are separated
from each other by 16 to 61 km (9.9 to 37.9 mi), so natural gene
exchange or re-establishment following extirpation is very unlikely. In
addition, six historical populations of beardless chinchweed are
distributed across two general areas in northern Chihuahua and Sonora,
Mexico. Their status is unknown, but we believe they are small
populations with poor habitat based on populations in the United
States, which are small and dominated by nonnative species. Although
this may imply some level of redundancy across the range of beardless
chinchweed, note that five of the six extant populations in the United
States contain fewer than 50 individual plants. Further, nine
populations and one subpopulation have been extirpated in recent
decades, largely from the lower elevations of the species' range, and
several populations have been reduced in size in recent decades.
Future Condition of Beardless Chinchweed
We also assessed the future condition of beardless chinchweed under
several plausible scenarios in our SSA report (Service 2018a, entire).
We present a summary of the relevant information here; the detailed
future condition analysis is available in the SSA report.
We developed four scenarios incorporating the stressors that are
ongoing or will occur in the future to consider the range of possible
future conditions. For each scenario, we describe the level of impact
from the identified stressors that would occur in each population. All
of the scenarios involve some degree of uncertainty; however, they
present a range of realistic and plausible future conditions (Table 6).
All scenarios consider impacts from nonnative invasion, altered
wildfire regime, and drought because there is no likely future scenario
where these stressors would not affect the species. In addition,
effects on individual plants (small population size) from multiple
stressors are assessed, including cross-border

[[Page 67075]]

violator traffic, mining, trampling, erosion, road and trail
maintenance, and grazing. We projected the likelihood of each scenario
occurring at 40-years. We chose 40 years because this is within the
range of available hydrological and climate change model forecasts, is
within the time period of the Rosemont Mine effects, and it represents
four generations of the plant.
Below is a summary of the four scenarios. For more detail, see
Chapter 6 of the SSA (Service 2018a, entire).

Table 6--Future Scenarios for Beardless Chinchweed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risks Mining activity Altered fire regime * Climate Individual effects Conservation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk described..................... Burial....... Lightning.... Reduction in Grazing..... Conservation actions
Removal...... Nonnative available water **. Trampling... implemented.
Dust......... plants. Seedling Trail and
Cross border desiccation. road maintenance.
violators. Flowering Erosion.....
Recreation... halt.
Scenario 1 Continuation continuing Rosemont mine Number of wildfires Available water and Applied to No new individuals,
into the future. implemented with annually increases at drought continue at populations <50 subpopulations or
indirect and direct the same rate as the the same level as in individuals. populations found.
impacts. last 10 years. the past 10 years, No augmentation of
emissions 4.5. existing
populations, little
seed preservation,
nonnatives not
controlled, some
woodland areas
thinned.
Scenario 2 Conservation............ Rosemont mine Number of wildfires Available water Applied to Sites revisited and
implemented with does not increase remains stable, populations <50 additional plants
indirect and direct from current rate. emissions 4.5. individuals. are located, sites
impacts; with are augmented, or
mitigation. new sites are
established, some
nonnatives are
controlled, and
additional woodland
areas are thinned.
Scenario 3 Moderate increase in Rosemont mine Number of wildfires Available water is Applied to No new individuals,
negative effects. implemented with increases. reduced per 4.5 populations <50 subpopulations or
direct impacts and emissions scenario. individuals. populations found.
additional mines No augmentation of
implemented with existing
indirect impacts. populations, little
seed preservation,
nonnatives not
controlled, some
woodland areas
thinned.
Scenario 4 Major increase in Rosemont mine Number of wildfires Available water is Applied to No new individuals,
negative effects. implemented and increases. reduced per 8.5 populations <50 subpopulations or
additional mines emissions scenario. individuals. populations found.
implemented with No augmentation of
direct impacts. existing
populations, little
seed preservation,
nonnatives not
controlled, some
woodland areas
thinned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ``continuation'' scenario evaluates the condition of beardless
chinchweed if there is no increase in risk of stressors to the
populations relative to what exists today. The other scenarios evaluate
the response of the species to changes in those risks. The
``conservation'' scenario takes into account realistically possible
additional protective measures, which may or may not happen. The
``moderate effects'' scenario is an increase in the risk of stressors
to populations. The ``major effects'' scenario is a further increase in
risk of stressors to populations.
We examined the resiliency, representation, and redundancy of
beardless chinchweed under each of these plausible scenarios (see table
6.7 in the SSA report). The overall resiliency categories are the same
as those used for current condition. We expect the six extant beardless
chinchweed populations to experience changes to aspects of their
habitat in different ways under the different scenarios. We projected
the expected future resiliency, representation, and redundancy of
beardless chinchweed based on the risk of stressors that would occur
under each scenario (see Table 7). Under the ``continuation'' scenario,
we would expect the viability of beardless chinchweed to be
characterized by a loss of resiliency, representation, and redundancy
at the level that is currently occurring. Under the ``conservation''
scenario, we would expect the viability of beardless chinchweed to be
characterized by higher levels of resiliency, representation, and
redundancy than it exhibits under the current condition. Under the
``moderate effects'' scenario, we would expect the viability of
beardless chinchweed to be characterized by lower levels of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy than it has in the ``continuation''
scenario. Under the ``major effects'' scenario, we would expect all
populations of beardless chinchweed to be extirpated at the 40-year
time step.

Table 7--Beardless Chinchweed Population Conditions Under the Current Condition and All Future Scenarios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation Conservation Moderate effects Major effects
Mountain range Population name Current condition scenario scenario scenario scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atascosa-Pajarito............... Pena Blanca Lake.. Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Ruby Road......... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Summit Motorway... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Canelo Hills.................... Audubon Research Low............... Low............... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Ranch.
Copper Mountain... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Harshaw Creek..... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Lampshire Well.... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Huachuca........................ Scotia Canyon..... Low............... Low............... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Coronado National Low............... Low............... Low............... Low............... Extirpated.
Memorial.
Joe's Canyon Trail Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Patagonia....................... Flux Canyon....... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Washington Camp... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Santa Rita...................... Box Canyon Road... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
McCleary Canyon-- Moderate.......... Low............... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Gunsight Pass.
McCleary Canyon-- Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Wasp Canyon.
Chihuahua, MX................... Batopililas....... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Guasaremos........ Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.

[[Page 67076]]

Sonora, MX...................... Canon de la Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Petaquilla.
Canyon Estrella... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Horconcitos....... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
Los Conejos....... Low............... Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated........ Extirpated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bartram's Stonecrop

Several factors influence whether Bartram's stonecrop populations
will grow to increase habitat occupancy, which increases the resiliency
of a population to stochastic events. We evaluated the past, current,
and future stressors that are affecting what Bartram's stonecrop needs
for viability. These stressors are described in detail in the chapter 4
of the SSA report (Service 2018b, entire). Stressors that have the
potential to affect Bartram's stonecrop population resiliency include:
Loss of water in nearby drainages from mining and drought;
Erosion, sedimentation, and burial from mining, livestock,
wildlife, recreation trails and roads, cross-border violators, and
post-wildfire runoff;
Trampling from humans, wildlife, and livestock, and
predation;
Altered fire regime resulting from fires ignited by
recreationists, cross-border violators, and lightning;
Illegal collection;
Altered precipitation, drought, flooding, and freezing
regime from current and future climate change, resulting in loss of
seedling, immature, and adult plants, and in loss of reproduction; and
Small population size exacerbating all other stressors.
The stressors that pose the largest risk to future viability of the
species, which are related to habitat changes, include:
(1) Groundwater extraction and prolonged drought that may reduce
nearby water levels and humidity within Bartram's stonecrop habitat;
and
(2) Altered fire regimes leading to erosion of Bartram's stonecrop
habitat, sedimentation that could cover individuals, and loss of
overstory shade trees. These stressors play a large role in the future
viability of Bartram's stonecrop, especially for smaller populations.
These stressors may reduce nearby water levels, shade, and humidity
within Bartram's stonecrop habitat and may directly impact individuals.
Loss of Water
Dewatering of streams from mining operations may lead to overstory
canopy losses and resulting loss of shade, as well as reduction in
spring and stream flow and humidity in nearby Bartram's stonecrop
populations. The Rosemont Mine Final Environmental Impact Statement
states that no Bartram's stonecrop were found in the project area or
the footprint of the connected actions; however, individuals growing in
the analysis area could experience indirect impacts from groundwater
drawdown (USFS 2013a, p. 676). According to the Rosemont Mine Final
Environmental Impact Statement (USFS 2013a, p. 339), the proposed mine
pit would create a permanent drawdown of the water table, and
groundwater would flow toward the pit and be lost to evaporation. The
water would be perpetually replenished in part by groundwater from the
regional aquifer, and the pit would act as a hydraulic sink. Given that
Bartram's stonecrop is consistently found in locations with nearby
springs or other water sources, the loss of groundwater at the nearby
unmapped spring in Box Canyon/Sycamore Canyon confluence, between
Ruelas Spring and the Singing Valley Road residences, could
significantly impact these Bartram's stonecrop plants. In the range of
Bartram's stonecrop, there are many mining claims, trenching and
exploration drilling activities, and a few active and proposed mines.
Many currently undeveloped areas of locatable mineral deposits may be
explored and/or mined in the future. We do not know the extent of
future mine activity within the range of Bartram's stonecrop; however,
a number of proposed mines are identified for development within
Bartram's stonecrop habitat. The range of current and projected mining
activities varies from 1 to 10 per sky island mountain range containing
Bartram's stonecrop (USFS 2012, entire). The loss of water in any
Bartram's stonecrop population could lead to extirpation of that
population.
Erosion, Sedimentation, and Burial
Bartram's stonecrop typically occurs on steep slopes with erodible
soils and areas susceptible to rock fall, making the plant particularly
vulnerable to physical damage to its environment (Phillips et al. 1982,
p. 10; Shohet 1999, p. 50; Ferguson 2014, p. 42; Ferguson 2016a, pp.
15, 26). Soil erosion can result in burying plants, eroding the soil
the plant is growing in, or dislodging plants. While displaced plants
may re-root (Shohet 1999, pp. 50-51, 60), it is more likely that these
plants will not survive (Ferguson 2015, p. 2). The potential of soil
disturbance and erosion within or above Bartram's stonecrop habitat or
the trampling of individual Bartram's stonecrop plants may occur from a
variety of activities, including livestock and wildlife movement; the
placement and maintenance of infrastructure, trails, and roads; and
recreationists or cross-border violators traveling along established
trails or cross country (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 10; Shohet 1999, p.
60; Ferguson 2014, p. 42; NPS 2015, p. 4; Ferguson 2016a, p. 26).
Direct removal of Bartram's stonecrop individuals and substrate due
to erosion, or burial of individuals, may occur due to the placement of
mineral extraction sites and debris piles. These impacts could severely
impact small Bartram's stonecrop populations. Erosion from test pits
(an excavation made to examine the subsurface conditions of a potential
mine site) has been documented to remove portions of habitat occupied
by Bartram's stonecrop in Flux Canyon (Phillips et al. 1982, pp. 9-10).
Trampling
The trampling of individual Bartram's stonecrop plants may occur
from a variety of activities, including livestock and wildlife
movement; the placement and maintenance of infrastructure, trails, and
roads; and recreationists or cross-border violators traveling along
established trails or cross country (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 10;
Shohet 1999, p. 60; Ferguson 2014, p. 42; NPS 2015, p. 4; Ferguson
2016a, p. 26). Given the potential for these stressors, those
populations with fewer than 50 individuals may be heavily impacted
during periods of unusual recreational use. This stressor is considered
in our analysis of future viability only when it may impact a
population with fewer than 50 individuals.
Altered Fire Regime
Since the mid-1980s, wildfire frequency in western forests has
nearly quadrupled compared to the average of the period 1970 to 1986
(Westerling et

[[Page 67077]]

al. 2006, p. 941). The timing, frequency, extent, and destructiveness
of wildfires are likely to continue to increase (Westerling et al.
2006, p. 943), especially given historical land management actions, an
increase in fire starts from cross-border violators and recreationists
(e.g., from campfires, cigarettes, target shooting), nonnative plant
invasion, and continuing drought conditions (Westerling et al. 2006, p.
940; FireScape 2016, entire; Fire Management Information System 2016,
p. 2; Tersey 2017, pers. comm.). Altered fire regimes can have direct
and indirect impacts to Bartram's stonecrop and its habitat. Direct
impacts include burning of individual Bartram's stonecrop plants,
resulting in injury, reduction in reproductive structures, or death.
Indirect impacts of fire on Bartram's stonecrop may include increased
runoff of floodwaters, post-fire flooding, deposition of debris and
sediment originating in the burned area, erosion, changes in vegetation
community composition and structure, increased presence of nonnative
plants, alterations in the hydrologic and nutrient cycles, and loss of
overstory canopy shade essential for maintaining Bartram's stonecrop
microhabitat (Griffis et al. 2000, p. 243; Crawford et al. 2001, p.
265; Hart et al. 2005, p. 167; Smithwick et al. 2005, p. 165; Stephens
et al. 2014, p. 42; Ferguson 2014, p. 43; Ferguson 2016a, p. 26).
We are aware of 11 wildfires (Alamo, Brown, Elkhorn, Hog, Horseshoe
II, La Sierra, Lizard, Mule Ridge, Murphy, Soldier Basin, and Spring)
that have occurred in known Bartram's stonecrop sites in the past
decade that killed some Bartram's stonecrop individuals and removed
shade in some instances. When looking at the number of acres burned per
sky island mountain range in comparison to the number of adult
individuals known from that range, the two largest populations occur in
sky island mountain ranges that have had the fewest acres burned in the
past 10 years. It is not known if this is coincidence or is of
significance, as we do not have pre-fire population counts in any
population to address this question. Wildfires have burned in all nine
sky island mountain ranges of southern Arizona that support Bartram's
stonecrop during this time period. Fires did not burn through Bartram's
stonecrop populations in all cases, but fire could occur in any
population within this 10-year timeframe. Wildfire could potentially
cause extirpation of small Bartram's stonecrop populations throughout
the range of the species and have negative impacts on larger
populations. In addition, because it is thought that Bartram's
stonecrop seeds reside at the soil surface and the seeds are very tiny
(Shohet 1999, p.48), it is likely that the seeds would not survive a
wildfire.
The nonnative plants in the uplands and within Bartram's stonecrop
populations include nonnative grass species such as Lehman's lovegrass
and rose natal, both of which have numerous advantages over native
grasses. Lehman's lovegrass resprouts from roots and tiller nodes not
killed by hot fire, is not hampered by the reduction in mycorrhizae
associated with fire and erosion, responds to winter precipitation when
natives grasses are dormant, produces copious seed earlier than native
grasses, maintains larger seedbanks than native grasses, and has higher
seedling survival and establishment than native grasses during periods
of drought (Anable 1990, p. 49; Anable et al. 1992, p. 182; Robinett
1992, p. 101; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000, pp. 94-95; Crimmins and
Comrie 2004, p. 464; Geiger and McPherson 2005, p. 896; Schussman et
al. 2006, p. 589; O'Dea 2007, p. 149; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 26;
Mathias et al. 2013, entire). Rose natal is capable of growing in low
moisture situations, has prolific seed production, and culms that root
from the nodes (Stokes et al. 2011, p. 527). Both species outcompete
native plants, reduce structural and spacial diversity of habitats, and
increased biomass and fuel loads, increasing the fire frequency.
Nonnative grasses have been reported with Bartram's stonecrop
individuals in two instances, at French Joe Canyon and Juniper Flat
populations, increasing the likelihood of fire occurrence and
subsequent impacts to these two populations (Heritage Database
Management System, E.O. ID 55; Simpson 2017, pers. comm.). Nonnative
plant species increase the frequency and severity of wildfires, such
wildfires can directly and indirectly impact individuals and
populations.
Illegal Collection
Bartram's stonecrop is an attractive small plant that can be easily
collected by gardeners and succulent enthusiasts. Tagged individuals
were uprooted and taken from two sites in the Santa Rita Mountains, one
near a campsite (Shohet 1999, p. 60). In a 2016 on-line Google search
for Bartram's stonecrop for sale, an advertisement from a collector in
Texas offered to pay cash for Bartram's stonecrop seedlings or rooted
cuttings. One website notes that the similar southern Arizona occurring
species, G. rusbyi, is cultivated and legally available for sale from
cactus nurseries; however, Bartram's stonecrop is not (because it is
more difficult to propagate and maintain in captivity) and is therefore
vulnerable to collection. 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.
Altered Precipitation, Drought, Flooding, and Freezing Regimes
Precipitation within the sky island mountain ranges is bimodal,
with winter snow and rain, and summer monsoon rain (CLIMAS 2014,
entire). Fall and winter (October through March) precipitation is
needed for Bartram's stonecrop germination, and both summer (July and
August) and fall precipitation (October and November) is needed for
Bartram's stonecrop flower production. Flowering is triggered by fall
rains and does not occur during periods of water stress (Shohet 1999,
pp. 22, 25, 36, 39). Altered precipitation timing and form (i.e., snow
versus rain), as well as reduced precipitation in the winter and spring
and prolonged drought, are important considerations in the analysis of
the future stressors to Bartram's stonecrop due to increased nonnative
competition during times of reduced precipitation and drought, which
exacerbate impacts from stressors (Anable 1990, p. 49; Robinett 1992,
p. 101; Fernandez and Reynolds 2000, pp. 94-95; Geiger and McPherson
2005, p. 896; Schussman et al. 2006, p. 589; Archer and Predick 2008,
p. 26; Mathias et al. 2013, entire). In addition, reduced precipitation
in the winter and spring and drought will also impact moisture
availability for Bartram's stonecrop's germination, growth, and
flowering.
Altered precipitation timing and form (snow versus rain), as well
as reduced winter and spring precipitation and prolonged drought, are
currently occurring and projected to increase or be altered from normal
in the Southwest (Garfin et al. 2014, entire). Recently there has been
a decrease in the amount of snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and increased
drought severity in the Southwest (Garfin et al. 2013, entire; Garfin
2013b, p. 465). Further, more wintertime precipitation is falling as
rain rather than snow in the western United States (IPCC 2013, p. 204;
Garfin 2013b p. 465). This means that the amount of runoff in the
spring when snow melts is reduced, as is soil moisture.
Under a continuation A2-high emissions scenario, reduced winter and

[[Page 67078]]

spring precipitation is consistently projected for the southern part of
the Southwest by 2100, as part of the general global precipitation
reduction in subtropical areas (Garfin et al. 2014, p. 465). Analyses
of the southwestern United States indicate future drying, primarily due
to a decrease in winter precipitation under both the RCP 4.5 and 8.5
scenarios (IPCC 2013, p. 1080). The annual projected changes in
precipitation for 2025 to 2049 under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios ranges
from an increase of 1.3 cm/mo (0.5 to a decrease of 0.5 in/mo), with an
annual average of no change compared to 1981 to 2010 (USGS 2019,
entire). However, winter and spring precipitation under both emission
scenarios is projected to decrease from -0.3 to -1 cm (-0.1 to -0.4 in)
(MACA 2019) or a decrease up to 10 percent for 2016-2035 relative to
1986-2005 under RCP 4.5 (IPCC 2013, p. 985). The decrease in winter and
spring precipitation would likely be greater under the RCP 8.5
scenario. There is some evidence from comparing observations with
simulations of the recent past that climate models might be
underestimating the magnitude of changes in precipitation in many
regions (IPCC 2013, p. 986). The climate-model-projected simulations
indicate that a high degree of variability of annual precipitation will
continue during the coming century, for both low and high emission
scenarios (Garfin 2013, p. 110). This suggests that the Southwest will
remain susceptible to unusually wet spells and, on the other hand, will
remain prone to occasional drought episodes (Garfin 2013, p. 110).
However, decrease in soil moisture across much of the Southwest is
projected under both scenarios by mid-century, due to increased
evaporation (IPCC 2013 p. 1259). Late winter-spring mountain snowpack
in the Southwest is predicted to continue to decline over the 21st
century under the high emission scenario (A2), mostly because of
projected increased temperature (Garfin et al. 2013, p. 6). Reduced
rain and snow, earlier snowmelt, and drying tendencies cause a
reduction in late-spring and summer runoff. Together these effects,
along with increases in evaporation, result in lower soil moisture by
early summer (Gafrin 2013, p. 117).
Precipitation timing and amount impacts the germination, growth,
and flowering of Bartram's stonecrop, resulting in the loss of
individuals and recruitment, and overall reducing the population size.
In the Southwest, temperatures increased 2.7[deg]C (1.6 [deg]F)
plus or minus 0.9 [deg]C (0.5 [deg]F), between 1901 and 2010, and more
heat waves occurred over the Southwest during 2001-2010 compared to
average occurrences in the 20th century. In the future, under RCP 4.5,
the annual maximum temperature is projected to increase by 5[deg]C
(2.7[deg]F) for 2025-2049 and 7.3 [deg]C (4[deg]F) for 2050-2074, and 5
[deg]C (2.7[deg]F) for 2025-2049 and 10.4 [deg]C (5.7[deg]F) for 2050-
2074 under RCP 8.5, all relative to 1981-2010 (USGS 2019, entire). When
temperatures rise, as has been occurring in recent decades and as is
projected to continue into the future, evapotranspiration rates also
increase and soil moisture decreases. Along with projected warming and
increased evapotranspiration, it is highly likely that droughts will
become more severe (Garfin 2013, pp. 137-138). A decrease of up to 4
percent soil moisture is projected under RCP 4.5 for 2016-2035,
relative to 1986-2005. The decrease in soil moisture would likely be
greater under RCP 8.5. Further, the evaporation deficient increases
under RCP 4.5 and increases more in RCP 8.5 in 2025 to 2049, relative
to 1981 to 2010. Based on the high emissions scenario, the current 100-
year drought will become commonplace in the second half of this century
and future droughts will be much more severe than those previously
recorded (Garfin 2013, p. 138). This projection of intensified drought
conditions on the Colorado River is not due to changes in
precipitation, but rather due directly to warming and its effect on
reducing soil moisture (Garfin 2013, p. 138). Physiological effects of
CO2 may involve both the stomatal response, which acts to
restrict transpiration, and an increase in plant growth and leaf area,
which acts to increase evapotranspiration (IPCC 2013 p. 986). An
increase in evapotranspiration results in water loss from the plant and
increases stress on the plant. This increase in stress impacts
photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration, water use efficiency, leaf
conductance, growth rate, vigor, and gas exchange. These impacts result
in reduced growth, flowering, and seed production, and, therefore,
reduces overall recruitment and population numbers.
Although rare species in the southwestern United States evolved
with drought, recent changes in temperature and rainfall patterns
present stressful conditions of increased magnitude above what the
species faced historically and raise the question of whether the
species in this rule can persist. Some species will shift their
distributions in response to warming of the climate (McLaughlin et al.
2002, p. 6070). It is highly unlikely that Bartram's stonecrop would be
able to naturally shift its range to keep up with current and high
projected rates of climate change due to its general state of
population decline, lack of suitable intervening habitat, and abundant
nonnative competitors. Thus, localized extinctions over portions of
Bartram's stonecrop's range could result.
Small Populations
Stressors are exacerbated in populations with only a small number
(e.g., fewer than 50) of individuals. Small populations are less able
to recover from losses caused by random environmental changes (Shaffer
and Stein 2000, pp. 308-310), such as fluctuations in reproduction
(demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall (environmental
stochasticity), or changes in the frequency or severity of wildfires.
Approximately half of the extant Bartram's stonecrop populations
contain 50 or fewer individuals. Loss due to erosion, trampling,
collection, predation, fire, severe frost, or other stressors have the
potential to seriously damage or completely remove these small
populations.
In summary, the stressors that pose the largest risk to future
species viability are primarily related to habitat changes: Groundwater
extraction from mining, long-term drought, and alteration in wildfire
regime. These stressors may reduce nearby water levels, shade, and
humidity within Bartram's stonecrop habitat and may directly impact
individuals. Other important stressors include erosion or trampling
from livestock, wildlife, or human activities; illegal collection;
predation of Bartram's stonecrop or their shade trees by wildlife and
insects; abnormal freezing or flooding events; or other stressors that
have the potential to seriously damage or completely remove small
populations. Synergistic interactions among wildfire, drought, altered
precipitation, and increased temperatures cumulatively and cyclically
impact Bartram's stonecrop, and all stressors are exacerbated in small
populations.
Current Condition of Bartram's Stonecrop
Historically, we know of 33 populations spread across 13 mountain
ranges. Four populations have been extirpated in the United States in
recent years, and a fifth population has likely contracted in size. In
addition, the southeastern Arizona landscape has experienced many
changes since the 1890s, resulting from intensive cattle grazing, water
development, and fire

[[Page 67079]]

suppression (e.g., Bahre 1991, entire). These impacts may have reduced
the range or number of populations and individuals. Currently, 29
extant populations occur across 12 mountain ranges in the United States
and Mexico: 9 in southern Arizona and 3 in northern Mexico. The U.S.
populations total 3,726 individuals within occupied habitats that total
about 2 ha (5 ac). Data are lacking for the Mexico populations;
however, based on populations in the United States, which are mostly
small, we believe that the three populations in Mexico are of similar
size to U.S. populations but may be in worse condition, because of
limited native habitat management, similar climate change impacts,
equally frequent wildfires, and likely more livestock impacts (Romo et
al. 2012, entire; Arriaga et al. 2004, entire; Fishbein and Warren
1994, p. 20).
Population Resiliency for Bartram's Stonecrop
To help determine current condition, we assessed each population in
terms of its resiliency and assessed the species' representation and
redundancy. Our analysis of the past, current, and future stressors on
the resources that Bartram's stonecrop needs for long-term viability
revealed a number of stressors to this species. All Bartram's stonecrop
populations likely contain nonnative grasses. Further, altered fire
regime has the potential to affect all populations. This altered fire
regime enhances the spread of nonnatives. Consequently, all populations
of Bartram's stonecrop will be further impacted by nonnative grasses in
the near future. Altered precipitation, increased temperatures, and
decreased annual precipitation are current and ongoing regional
conditions that are impacting all populations of Bartram's stonecrop.
These environmental conditions exacerbate an altered fire regime,
which, in turn, further drives the spread of nonnatives. In addition,
nonnative grasses have competitive advantage over native grasses during
periods of drought. Many currently undeveloped areas of locatable
mineral deposits may be explored or mined in the future. We do not know
the extent of future mine activity within the range of Bartram's
stonecrop; however, there are 12 mining projects currently ongoing or
proposed within 8 km (5 mi) of Bartram's stonecrop populations in
Arizona. The range of current and projected mining activities varies
from 1 to 10 per sky island mountain range containing Bartram's
stonecrop (USFS 2012, entire). One population, Sycamore Canyon (115
adult individuals), would be affected by groundwater drawdown due to
the Rosemont Mine. Sycamore Canyon is currently in moderate condition.
Further, this species is collected and sold. Synergistic interactions
among wildfire, nonnative grasses, decreased precipitation, and
increased temperatures cumulatively and cyclically impact Bartram's
stonecrop, and all stressors are exacerbated in small populations. In
addition, because approximately 41 percent (12 populations) of the
extant Bartram's stonecrop populations contain 50 or fewer individuals,
loss due to erosion, trampling, collection, predation, fire, severe
frost, or other stressors have the potential to seriously damage or
completely remove these small populations. Of the 29 extant
populations, 1 population (3 percent) is in high condition, 21
populations (72 percent) are in moderate condition, and 7 populations
(24 percent) are in low condition (Table 8, below). Population
resiliency categories are described in Table 4, above, and in the SSA
report (Service 2018b).

Table 8--Bartram's Stonecrop Current Population Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Sky Island Population individuals Current condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baboquivari............................. Brown Canyon.............. 112 Moderate.
Thomas Canyon............. 5 Low.
Chiricahua.............................. Echo Canyon............... 186 Moderate.
Indian Creek.............. 0 Extirpated.
Dragoon................................. Carlink Canyon............ 0 Extirpated.
Jordan Canyon............. 415 Moderate.
Sheephead................. 45 Moderate.
Slavin Gulch.............. 9 Moderate.
Stronghold Canyon East.... 188 Moderate.
Stronghold Canyon West.... 533 High.
Empire.................................. Empire Mountains.......... 0 Extirpated.
Mule.................................... Juniper Flat.............. 798 Moderate.
Pajarito-Atascosa....................... Alamo Canyon.............. 134 Moderate.
Holden Canyon............. 7 Moderate.
Sycamore Canyon........... 298 Moderate.
Warsaw Canyon............. 13 Moderate.
Patagonia............................... Alum Gulch................ 123 Moderate.
Rincon.................................. Chimenea-Madrona Canyon... 9 Moderate.
Happy Valley North........ 0 Extirpated.
Happy Valley South........ 14 Moderate.
Santa Rita.............................. Adobe Canyon.............. 82 Moderate.
Gardner Canyon............ 14 Moderate.
Josephine Canyon.......... 71 Moderate.
Madera Canyon............. 76 Moderate.
Squaw Gulch............... 5 Low.
Sycamore Canyon........... 115 Moderate.
Temporal Gulch............ 7 Moderate.
Walker Canyon............. 3 Moderate.
Whetstone............................... Deathtrap Canyon.......... 135 Low.
French Joe Canyon......... 87 Low.
Sierra Las Avispas, Sonora.............. Sierra Las Avispas........ 10 Low.
Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua........... Near Colonia Pacheco...... 10 Low.
Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua........... Cuarenta Casas............ 10 Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 67080]]

Bartram's Stonecrop Representation
No genetic studies have been conducted within or between the 33
historical populations of Bartram's stonecrop in southern Arizona and
Mexico. However, we assessed representation for Bartram's stonecrop in
the form of its geographic distribution across the range. Some genetic
exchange likely occurs within populations containing many
subpopulations or many plants per subpopulation. Sky island populations
on different mountain ranges are widely separated (ranging from roughly
14 to 42 km (8.7 to 26 mi) apart), making cross-pollination across sky
islands highly unlikely. Mountain ranges that have only one or two
populations, have only one subpopulation per population, or have low
numbers of individuals per population with several miles between
mountain ranges may not be as genetically diverse because pollination
or transport of seeds between populations may be very limited. However,
there may be genetic diversity between populations within and between
the sky island mountain ranges in response to elevational and other
environmental differences between locations. Due to the loss of four
populations, it is possible that there has been a loss of genetic
diversity. However, because the species occurs across 29 populations in
12 mountain ranges, it is likely some genetic diversity exists among
mountain ranges.
In addition, because the plant occurs on multiple substrate types
and at a range of elevations (1,067 to 2,042 m (3,500 to 6,700 ft)),
there is likely some local adaptation and genetic differentiation among
populations. This range in elevation provides a variety of climatic
conditions for the species to inhabit. Lastly, in at least three
locations (Flux Canyon, Sycamore Canyon (Pajarito-Atascosa Mountains),
and Gardner Canyon populations), Bartram's stonecrop have been reported
over many decades, indicating that these populations may have the
genetic and environmental diversity to adapt to changing conditions.
Bartram's Stonecrop Redundancy
The Bartram's stonecrop populations in the United States and Mexico
are naturally fragmented between mountain ranges. Currently, 29 extant
Bartram's stonecrop populations are spread across 12 different mountain
ranges in southern Arizona and northern Mexico. Although these numbers
may imply redundancy across its range, note that 24 of the 29 extant
populations contain fewer than 150 total individual plants. Further, 14
of the 29 populations have 50 individuals or less, and 4 populations
have been extirpated over recent (approximately 10) years. Five
mountain ranges (Baboquivari, Chiricahua, Mule, Whetstone, and
Patagonia Mountains) have only one or two populations each or have only
have one subpopulation per population, and low numbers of individuals
per population. These sky island mountain ranges are several miles away
from the other sky island mountain ranges, so natural gene exchange or
re-establishment following extirpation is unlikely. In addition, the
Mule Mountains contain large number of Bartram's stonecrop individuals,
but there is only one population and it is approximately 38 km (23.6
mi) away from the nearest population, making natural re-establishment
of populations unlikely. In addition, this population is known to be
contracting in size due to drying of habitat (The Nature Conservancy
1987, p. 2).
Future Condition of the Bartram's Stonecrop
We now consider the species' future condition of population
resiliency and the species' representation and redundancy are likely to
be. The future viability of Bartram's stonecrop depends on maintaining
multiple resilient populations over time. The resiliency of Bartram's
stonecrop populations depends on moisture in their microenvironment
maintained by shade from overstory vegetation, spring and winter
precipitation, proximity to water, and vegetation litter. We expect the
29 extant Bartram's stonecrop populations to experience changes to all
of these aspects of their habitat, although it may be in different ways
under the different conditions. In addition, direct impacts to
Bartram's stonecrop through being dislodged, buried, or collected will
continue to impact the species.
Given our uncertainty regarding the scope of the stressors
manifesting and the species' response, we forecasted future conditions
of Bartram's stonecrop under four plausible future scenarios (see
chapter 6 of the SSA report; Service 2018b). We developed these
scenarios to span a range of potential stressors that are ongoing or
will occur in the future that we believe will influence the future
status of the species. We chose 10 years to evaluate the current
condition, as well as future projections out to 40 years because this
is within the range of predictions of available hydrological and
climate change model forecasts and is within the time period of the
Rosemont Mine effects. This time frame represents eight generations of
the Bartram's stonecrop, which allows us to assess reproductive effects
on the species and allows the species opportunities to rebound after
poor water years. The ten-year time step also represents a reasonable
timeframe to judge the species' current vulnerability to threats as
they are manifested now, without projecting changes to threats that
longer timeframes would provide. Thus, the future scenarios forecast
the viability of Bartram's stonecrop over the next 40 years. See table
9 below for a summary of the four scenarios. For more detail, see
Chapter 6 of the SSA report (Service 2018b, entire).

Table 9--Future Scenarios for Bartram's Stonecrop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risks Mining activity Altered fire regime Climate Climate Individual effects Conservation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk described........... Water extraction, Lightning Reduction in Dislodging from Livestock Conservation
Excavation, Burial, Recreation Cross available water * flooding events, Recreation actions
Shade reduction. border violators and/or shade. Seedling Trampling implemented.
Nonnative plants. desiccation, Predation
Flowering halt, Collection.
Shade removal.
Scenario 1. Continuation Ongoing or planned Number of wildfires Available water and Number and severity Applied to No new individuals,
continuing into the mining activities annually increases drought continue of flooding events populations <50 subpopulations or
future. as of 2012 (~20). at the same rate at the same level continues at the individuals. populations found.
as the last 10 as in the past 10 past 10 years. No augmentation of
years. years. Emissions Emissions <4.5. existing
8.5. populations, no
seed preservation,
nonnatives
controlled, and
forest thinned.
Scenario 2. Conservation. Number of mining Number of wildfires Available water Flooding events do Applied to Sites revisited and
activities does not does not increase remains stable. not increase. populations <50 additional plants
increase from from current rate. Emissions 4.5. Emissions <4.5. individuals. are located, sites
current condition. are augmented, or
new sites are
established,
nonnatives
controlled, and
forest thinned.

[[Page 67081]]

Scenario 3. Moderate 1-3 new mining Number of wildfires Available water is Increases in flash Applied to No new individuals,
increase in negative activities (above increases in reduced per 8.5 flooding per 4.5 populations <50 subpopulations, or
effects. the 2012 number) uplands. emissions scenario. emissions scenario. individuals. populations found,
are implemented and/ and no
or existing mines augmentation of
expand. existing
populations,
nonnatives
controlled, and
forest thinned.
Scenario 4. Major >3 new mining Number of wildfires Available water is Increases in flash Applied to No new individuals,
increase in negative activities are increases in reduced per 8.5 flooding per 8.5 populations <50 subpopulations or
effects. implemented and/or uplands. emissions scenario. emissions scenario. individuals. populations found,
existing mines and no
expand. augmentation of
existing
populations,
nonnatives
controlled, and
forest thinned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Available water includes precipitation, soil moisture, humidity, surface water, aquifer recharge, reduction in riparian vegetation, and increased
number of days without water.

All scenarios consider impacts from mining, wildfire, and climate.
In addition, effects on individual plants from multiple stressors are
assessed, including livestock, recreation, trampling, predation, and
collection. The ``continuation'' scenario evaluates the condition of
Bartram's stonecrop if there is no increase in risks to the populations
relative to what exists today, while the other scenarios evaluate the
response of the species to changes in those risks. The ``conservation''
scenario takes into account realistically possible additional
protective measures which may or may not happen. The ``moderate
effects'' scenario is an increase in the risks to populations with
changes in climate as projected in a lower (8.5) emissions scenario
along with increases in other stressors. The ``major effects'' scenario
is a further increase in risks to populations, with changes in climate
projected at a higher (8.5) emissions scenario, and with additional
increases in other stressors. These are described in more detail in
chapter 6 of the SSA report (Service 2018b).
The most likely scenario is the ``moderate effects'' scenario, with
impacts to the species occurring around the 40-year time step. Under
the ``moderate effects'' scenario, water flow reduction due to drought
and groundwater extraction continues to reduce the humid microhabitat
for this species. Cross-border violator traffic continues, and risk of
catastrophic wildfire is high due to dry conditions; invasion of
nonnatives in the uplands; and increased risk of fire starts from
illegal activity, recreation, and natural causes. Mining impacts
individuals in the Patagonia and Santa Rita Mountains. Collection,
trampling, freezing, predation, and human impacts also continue at
current or increased levels. The full analyses of all scenarios are
available in the SSA report (Service 2018b, chapter 6); however, we are
only presenting the full results of the ``moderate effects'' scenario
here because it gives the most realistic projection of the future
condition of the species.
Under the ``moderate effects'' scenario, within the 40-year
timeframe, we expect Bartram's stonecrop's viability to be
characterized by lower levels of resiliency, representation, and
redundancy than it has currently, which is already reduced as described
above. Under the ``moderate effects'' scenario, no populations would be
in high condition, 4 populations (12 percent) would remain in moderate
condition, 16 populations (52 percent) would be in low condition, and
13 populations (36 percent) would be extirpated, further reducing
population redundancy and connectivity (see table 6.6 in the SSA
report; Service 2018b). Under the ``moderate effects'' scenario,
because of the intensity of stressors discussed above, 22 populations
would be reduced from their current condition (see Table 10, and see
figure 6.3 and table 6.6 in the SSA report (Service 2018b)). We further
believed that in the ``moderate effects'' scenario, one of the three
small populations in Mexico becomes extirpated due to the amount of
nonnatives contributing to fire, reduction in precipitation, increase
in drought, and low resiliency of a small population.

Table 10--Bartram's Stonecrop Population Conditions Under the ``Moderate Effects'' Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition under the ``moderate effects''
Sky Island Population scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baboquivari............................ Brown Canyon.............. Low.
Thomas Canyon............. Low.
Chiricahua............................. Echo Canyon............... Low.
Indian Creek.............. Extirpated.
Dragoon................................ Carlink Canyon............ Extirpated.
Jordan Canyon............. Moderate.
Sheephead................. Low.
Slavin Gulch.............. Low.
Stronghold Canyon East.... Moderate.
Stronghold Canyon West.... Moderate.
Empire................................. Empire Mountains.......... Extirpated.
Mule................................... Juniper Flat.............. Low.
Pajarito-Atascosa...................... Alamo Canyon.............. Low.
Holden Canyon............. Extirpated.
Sycamore Canyon........... Moderate.
Warsaw Canyon............. Extirpated.
Patagonia.............................. Alum Canyon............... Extirpated.
Rincon................................. Chimenea-Madrona Canyon... Low.
Happy Valley North........ Extirpated.
Happy Valley South........ Low.
Santa Rita............................. Adobe Canyon.............. Low.
Gardner Canyon............ Low.
Josephine Canyon.......... Low.

[[Page 67082]]

Madera Canyon............. Extirpated.
Squaw Gulch............... Extirpated.
Sycamore Canyon........... Extirpated.
Temporal Gulch............ Low.
Walker Canyon............. Extirpated.
Whetstone.............................. Deathtrap Canyon.......... Low.
French Joe Canyon......... Extirpated.
Sierra Las Avispas, Sonora............. Sierra Las Avispas........ Low.
Sierra La Escuadra, Chihuahua.......... Near Colonia Pacheco...... Extirpated.
Sierra La Estancia, Chihuahua.......... Cuarenta Casas............ Low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

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
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on (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.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future stressors
to beardless chinchweed and Bartram's stonecrop.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.''
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose listing beardless chinchweed as
endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act and
Bartram's stonecrop as threatened in accordance with sections 3(20) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
Beardless Chinchweed
Historically there were 21 populations. Nine populations have been
extirpated, leaving 12 extant populations (six in the United States and
six in Mexico). The six populations in the United States consist of 387
individuals spread across less than 2 ha (5 ac). The six populations
have been reported from northern Mexico, but this information is from
1940 or earlier.
The proliferation of invasive nonnative grasses throughout most of
the beardless chinchweed's range has greatly affected this species
through increased competition and altered fire regimes. Many of these
historical locations no longer support beardless chinchweed due to this
alteration of habitat (National Park Service 2014, pp. 3-4; Service
2014b, pp. 1-2; Service 2014c, entire; Service 2014d, pp. 1-2).
All beardless chinchweed populations likely contain nonnative
grasses, resulting in habitat loss (Factor A). Further, altered fire
regime (Factors A and E), which is currently or in the near future
impacting all populations, drives the spread of nonnatives (Factor A),
exacerbating the encroachment of nonnative grasses. Consequently, all
remaining populations of beardless chinchweed are impacted by nonnative
grasses now or will be in the near future. Altered precipitation
(Factors A and E), increased temperatures (Factors A and E), and
decreased annual precipitation (Factors A and E) are current and
ongoing regional conditions that are impacting all populations of
beardless chinchweed. These environmental conditions exacerbate an
altered fire regime, which, in turn, drives the spread of nonnatives.
In addition, nonnative grasses have competitive advantage over native
grasses during periods of drought. Road and trail maintenance (Factors
A and E) is altering habitat and likely resulting in the direct killing
of individuals in three populations (Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon, and
Coronado National Memorial). In addition, all individuals in these
three populations are being impacted by dust (Factor E) from the road.
These three populations are already of low resiliency. Two additional
populations (McCleary Canyon--Gunsight Pass and McCleary Canyon--Wasp
Canyon) will be impacted by roads (Factor A) related to mining
operations in the near future (Westland 2010, p. iv). All individuals
of these two populations will also be impacted by dust (Factor E). One
of these populations is already of low resiliency and the other is of
moderate resiliency. Of the 12 populations, 11 (92 percent) are small
populations (fewer than 50 individuals). Synergistic interactions among
wildfire, nonnative grasses, decreased precipitation, and increased
temperatures cumulatively and cyclically impact beardless chinchweed,
and all stressors are exacerbated in small populations (Factor E). No
conservation efforts have been implemented for this species.
We consider beardless chinchweed to have poor representation in the
form of potential genetic diversity (Factor E). All but one population
has fewer than 50 individuals. Small populations are susceptible to the
loss of genetic diversity, genetic drift, and inbreeding. There are
currently six populations spread across four mountain ranges in the
United States and six populations in northern Mexico that are presumed
extant. Five of the six extant U.S. populations do not have multiple
subpopulations (all but the Coronado National Memorial population,
which has two subpopulations). Mountain ranges that have only one or
two populations, have only have one subpopulation per population, or
have low numbers of individuals per population with several miles (16
to 61 km (9.9 to 37.9 mi)) between mountain ranges, may not be
genetically diverse because pollination or transport of seeds between
populations may be very limited. This could mean that between-
population genetic diversity may be greater than within-population
diversity (Smith and Wayne 1996, p. 333; Lindenmayer and Peakall 2000,
p. 200). Further, nine populations are extirpated, and it is possible
that there has been a loss of genetic diversity.
Beardless chinchweed populations in the United States range in
elevation from 1,158 m (3,799 ft) to 1,737 m (5,699 ft) in elevation.
Of the 15 historical U.S. populations, 8

[[Page 67083]]

(approximately 53 percent) fall below 457 m (1,500 ft) elevation. Of
these eight, six have become extirpated in recent decades. This
essentially indicates a loss at this lower elevational range and
possibly loss of some local adaptation to warmer or dryer environments
and genetic differentiation among populations (Factor E).
Beardless chinchweed needs to have multiple resilient populations
distributed throughout its range to provide for redundancy. Beardless
chinchweed needs multiple resilient populations spread over their range
that are distributed in such a way that a catastrophic event will not
result in the loss of all populations. With the known extant
populations being separated by as much as 35 km (21.8 mi) in southern
Arizona and even farther in northern Mexico, there is little connection
potential between known disjunct populations. Therefore, a localized
stressor such as grazing during flowering would impact only those
groups of plants nearby the activity. However, repeated, large-scale,
moderate- and high-severity fires, nonnative plant invasion, and
climatic changes occur across the region and could impact all
populations now or in the near future. The distance among populations
reduces connectivity among populations and mountain ranges, making it
unlikely that a site that is extirpated can be naturally recolonized by
another population (Factor E).
We find that beardless chinchweed is presently in danger of
extinction throughout its entire range based on the severity and
immediacy of stressors currently impacting the species. The overall
range has been significantly reduced (nine populations extirpated), and
the remaining habitat and populations are threatened by a variety of
factors acting in combination to reduce the overall viability of the
species. The risk of extinction is high because the remaining
populations are small, isolated, and have limited potential for natural
recolonization. Therefore, on the basis of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we propose listing beardless
chinchweed as endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1)
of the Act. We find that a threatened species status is not appropriate
for beardless chinchweed because of the species's current precarious
condition due to its contracted range, because the stressors are severe
and occurring rangewide, and because the stressors are ongoing and
expected to continue into the future.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that
beardless chinchweed is endangered throughout all of its range, we find
it unnecessary to proceed to an evaluation of potentially significant
portions of the range. Where the best available information allows the
Service to determine a status for the species rangewide, that
determination should be given conclusive weight because a rangewide
determination of status more accurately reflects the species' degree of
imperilment and better promotes the purposes of the statute. Under this
reading, we should first consider whether listing is appropriate based
on a rangewide analysis and proceed to conduct a ``significant portion
of its range'' analysis if, and only if, a species does not qualify for
listing as either endangered or threatened according to the ``all''
language. We note that the court in Desert Survivors v. Department of
the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
2018), did not address this issue, and our conclusion is therefore
consistent with the opinion in that case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose to list beardless chinchweed as an
endangered species across its entire range in accordance with sections
3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Bartram's Stonecrop
Bartram's stonecrop has experienced population declines and four
populations have been lost entirely. Currently, there are 29 extant
populations. All Bartram's stonecrop populations contain or are near
nonnative grasses resulting in habitat loss in the future (Factor A).
Further, altered fire regime (Factors A and E), which is currently and
in the future impacting all populations, drives the spread of
nonnatives (Factor A), exacerbating the encroachment of nonnative
grasses. Consequently, all populations of Bartram's stonecrop will be
impacted by nonnative grasses in the future. Altered precipitation
(Factors A and E), increased temperatures (Factors A and E), and
decreased annual precipitation (Factors A and E) are current and
ongoing regional conditions that are impacting all populations of
Bartram's stonecrop. These environmental conditions exacerbate an
altered fire regime, which, in turn, drives the spread of nonnatives.
In addition, nonnative grasses have competitive advantage over native
grasses during periods of drought. Many currently undeveloped areas of
locatable mineral deposits may be explored or mined in the future
(Factors A and E). The range of current and projected mining activities
varies from 1 to 10 per sky island mountain range containing Bartram's
stonecrop (USFS 2012, entire). One population, Sycamore Canyon (115
adult individuals), will be affected by groundwater drawdown due to the
Rosemont Mine, which will impact the shade and moist microclimate this
species needs (Factor A). This species is known to be collected and
sold (Factor B), and plants in close proximity to trails or roads have
higher discovery potential and are, therefore, more likely to be
collected. In addition, because approximately 47 percent of the extant
Bartram's stonecrop populations contain 50 or fewer individuals (Factor
E), loss due to erosion (Factors A and E), trampling (Factor E),
collection (Factor B), predation (Factor C), and fire (Factors A and E)
has the potential to seriously damage or completely remove these small
populations. Synergistic interactions among wildfire, nonnative
grasses, decreased precipitation, and increased temperatures
cumulatively and cyclically impact Bartram's stonecrop, and all
stressors are exacerbated in small populations (Factor E). No
conservation efforts have been implemented for this species.
We consider Bartram's stonecrop to have poor representation in the
form of potential genetic diversity. Sky island populations on
different mountain ranges are widely separated (ranging from roughly 14
to 42 km (8.7 to 26 mi) apart), making genetic exchange highly
unlikely. There is likely genetic diversity among mountain ranges, but
reduced genetic diversity within populations. Further, overall genetic
diversity is likely reduced given that four populations are extirpated.
However, it is likely that the species' genetic representation will be
lost given the impacts to populations through the reduction in the
number of individuals per population and the loss of populations
(Factor E). In addition, it is likely that ecological representation
will continue to decline as those populations at lower elevations are
lost due to reduced precipitation and increased temperatures (Factor
E).
The Bartram's stonecrop populations in the United States and Mexico
are naturally fragmented between mountain ranges. Currently, 29 extant
Bartram's stonecrop populations are spread across 12 different mountain
ranges in southern Arizona and northern Mexico. Although this may imply
redundancy

[[Page 67084]]

across its range, note that 24 of the 29 extant populations contain
fewer than 150 total individual plants. Further, 14 of the 29
populations have 50 individuals or less, and 4 populations have been
extirpated. Five mountain ranges (Baboquivari, Chiricahua, Mule,
Whetstone, and Patagonia Mountains) have only one or two populations
each, have only one subpopulation per population, or have low numbers
of individuals per population. These sky island mountain ranges are
several miles away from the other sky island mountain ranges, so
natural gene exchange or re-establishment following extirpation is
unlikely. In addition, the Mule Mountains contain large number of
Bartram's stonecrop individuals, but there is only one population, and
it is approximately 38 km (23.6 mi) away from the nearest population,
making natural re-establishment of populations unlikely. In addition,
this population has contracted in size due to drying of habitat (The
Nature Conservancy 1987, p. 2; Rawoot 2017, pers. comm.).
The overall range of the species has not been significantly
reduced, although four populations are extirpated due to habitat
drying. Currently, 29 extant populations are spread across 12 mountain
ranges, providing protection from catastrophic events in the near
future (approximately 10 years). While there are multiple stressors to
the remaining populations, these stressors are not immediately
impacting all populations such that Bartram's stonecrop is in danger of
extinction. The stressors that pose the largest risk to future species
viability are primarily related to habitat changes: Groundwater
extraction from mining, long-term drought, and alteration in wildfire
regime. These are stressors that we have high confidence in occurring
and impacting Bartram's stonecrop within the next 40 years. We chose a
foreseeable future of 40 years (approximately 2060) because this is
within the range of predictions of available hydrological and climate
change model forecasts, is within the time period of the Rosemont Mine
effects, and represents eight generations of the Bartram's stonecrop,
which allows us to assess reproductive effects on the species and
allows the species opportunities to rebound after poor water years. The
primary sources we examined in determining foreseeable future include
the IPCC (2013 and 2014 entire) and Garfin et al. 2013 entire. The IPCC
emission scenarios projections are for 2025 to 2049 and 2050--2074, or
approximately mid-century, under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. This is 6
to 30 and 31 to 55 years, respectively, in the future. The IPCC has
high confidence for climate projections of increased temperature during
this interval. In addition, we examined literature pertaining to
wildfire frequency and severity, including Westerling et al. 2006,
FireScape 2016, and Fire Management Information System 2016. An
increase in temperature results in increased evapotranspiration rates
and soil drying, resulting in the effects of future droughts becoming
more severe (Garfin 2013, pp. 137-138) and wildfires becoming more
frequent and of increased intensity. Given that climate change
projections are for mid-century and that wildfire is influenced by a
drying climate, we used 40 years as the foreseeable future for this
species. We find that Bartram's stonecrop is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future (approximately 40
years) throughout all of its range based on the severity and immediacy
of stressors.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the
Bartram's stonecrop is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout its range, we find it unnecessary to
proceed to an evaluation of potentially significant portions of the
range. Where the best available information allows the Service to
determine a status for the species rangewide, that determination should
be given conclusive weight because a rangewide determination of status
more accurately reflects the species' degree of imperilment and better
promotes the purposes of the statute. Under this reading, we should
first consider whether listing is appropriate based on a rangewide
analysis and proceed to conduct a ``significant portion of its range''
analysis if, and only if, a species does not qualify for listing as
either endangered or threatened according to the ``all'' language. We
note that the court in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior,
No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), did not
address this issue, and our conclusion is therefore consistent with the
opinion in that case.
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose to list Bartram's stonecrop as a
threatened species across its entire range in accordance with sections
3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private
organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the stressors to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new stressors to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
downlisting (reclassification from endangered to threatened) or
delisting (removal from listed status), and methods for monitoring
recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for
agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of
the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft

[[Page 67085]]

recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our
website (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Arizona Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Arizona would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of beardless chinchweed and Bartram's
stonecrop. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although beardless chinchweed and Bartram's stonecrop are only
proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if
you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for this
species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on
this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may
have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Beardless Chinchweed
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service
(Coronado National Forest), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, and National Park Service (Coronado National
Memorial).
With respect to endangered plants, prohibitions at section 9 of the
Act and 50 CFR 17.61 make it illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity,
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or to remove
and reduce to possession any such plant species from areas under
Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for endangered plants, the Act
prohibits malicious damage or destruction of any such species on any
area under Federal jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, digging up,
or damaging or destroying of any such species on any other area in
knowing violation of any State law or regulation, or in the course of
any violation of a State criminal trespass law. Exceptions to these
prohibitions are set forth at 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered plants under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.62 and 17.63. With regard
to endangered plants, the Service may issue a permit authorizing any
activity otherwise prohibited by 50 CFR 17.61 for scientific purposes,
for enhancing the propagation or survival of endangered plants, or for
economic hardship. At this time, we are unable to identify specific
activities that would not be considered to result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act because beardless chinchweed occurs in a variety
of habitat conditions across its range.
Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this
list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
(2) Ground-disturbing activities within 30 m (98 ft) of individual
beardless chinchweed plants;
(3) Dislodging and trampling by livestock;
(4) Livestock grazing during April through October where the
species occurs; and
(5) Herbicide applications within 30 m (98 ft) of individual
beardless chinchweed plants.
Bartram's Stonecrop
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service
(Coronado National Forest), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, and National Park Service (Chiricahua National
Monument and Saguaro National Park).
With respect to threatened plants, the Act allows the Secretary to
promulgate regulations to prohibit activities to provide for the
conservation of the species. Under II. Proposed Section 4(d) Rule for
Bartram's stonecrop, below, we explain what activities we are proposing
to prohibit.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened plants under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.72. With regard to
threatened plants, a permit issued under this section must be for one
of the following: Scientific purposes, the enhancement of the
propagation or survival of threatened species, economic hardship,
botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or other
activities consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of the Act. The intent of this policy is to
increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the species
proposed for listing. At this time, we are unable to identify specific
activities that would not be considered to result in a violation of the
Act because the Bartram's stonecrop occurs in a variety of habitat
conditions across its range.

[[Page 67086]]

Based on the best available information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of the Act; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
(2) Ground-disturbing activities within 30 m (98 ft) of individual
Bartram's stonecrop plants;
(3) Herbicide applications within 30 m (98 ft) of individual
Bartram's stonecrop plants; and
(4) Dislodging and trampling by livestock.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of the Act should be directed to the Arizona Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Proposed Section 4(d) Rule for Bartram's Stonecrop

Background

Section 4(d) of the Act states that the ``Secretary shall issue
such regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation'' of species listed as threatened. In Webster v. Doe, 486
U.S. 592 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court noted that similar ``necessary
or advisable'' language ``fairly exudes deference'' to the agency.
Conservation is defined in section 3 of the Act as the use of all
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally,
section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary ``may by regulation
prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited''
under section 9(a)(2) of the Act. Thus, regulations promulgated under
section 4(d) of the Act provide the Secretary with wide latitude of
discretion to select appropriate provisions tailored to the specific
conservation needs of the threatened species. The statute grants
particularly broad discretion to the Service when adopting the
prohibitions under section 9.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, the Secretary may decide not to
include a taking prohibition for threatened wildlife, or to include a
limited taking prohibition. See Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher,
2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental
Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, and 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis
5432 (W.D. Wash. 2002). In addition, as affirmed in State of Louisiana
v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988), the rule need not address all
the stressors to the species. As noted by Congress when the Act was
initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened list, the
Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available to him
with regard to the permitted activities for those species. He may, for
example, permit taking, but not importation of such species,'' or he
may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the
transportation of such species, as long as the prohibitions, and
exceptions to those prohibitions, will ``serve to conserve, protect, or
restore the species concerned in accordance with the purposes of the
Act'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
The Service has developed a species-specific 4(d) rule that is
designed to address Bartram's stonecrop's specific stressors and
conservation needs. Although the statute does not require the Service
to make a ``necessary and advisable'' finding with respect to the
adoption of specific prohibitions under section 9, we find that this
regulation is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation
of Bartram's stonecrop. As discussed under Summary of Biological Status
and Stressors, above, the Service has concluded that Bartram's
stonecrop is at risk of extinction within the foreseeable future
primarily due to groundwater extraction and prolonged drought that may
reduce nearby water levels and humidity within Bartram's stonecrop's
microenvironment, and altered fire regimes leading to erosion of
Bartram's stonecrop that could dislodge plants, sedimentation that
could cover individuals, and loss of overstory shade trees. In
addition, collection, trampling, predation, flooding, and dislodging
and burial from recreationists, cross-border violators, and domestic
and wild animals contribute to the risk of extinction within the
foreseeable future due to the majority of populations being small and
isolated. The provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule would promote
conservation of Bartram's stonecrop by encouraging management of the
landscape in ways that meet land management needs while meeting the
conservation needs of Bartram's stonecrop. The provisions of this rule
are one of many tools that the Service would use to promote the
conservation of Bartram's stonecrop. This proposed 4(d) rule would
apply only if and when the Service makes final the listing of Bartram's
stonecrop as a threatened species.

Provisions of the Proposed Protective Regulation

This proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the
Bartram's stonecrop by applying all of the prohibitions applicable to
an endangered plant, except as otherwise authorized or permitted:
Import or export; certain acts related to removing, damaging, and
destroying; delivery, receipt, transport, or shipment in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sale or
offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. Bartram's
stonecrop is an attractive and small plant that can be easily collected
by gardeners and succulent enthusiasts. We have confirmed collection
from the wild and sale in interstate commerce. Because Bartram's
stonecrop is difficult to propagate and maintain in captivity, it is
more vulnerable to collection than other plants in this genus. Small
populations may not be able to recover from collection, especially if
the mature, reproductive plants are removed.
As discussed under Summary of Biological Status and Stressors,
above, multiple factors are affecting the status of Bartram's
stonecrop. A range of activities have the potential to impact Bartram's
stonecrop, including:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;
(2) Ground-disturbing activities where the species occurs;
(3) Activities that would affect pollinators where the species
occurs and in the surrounding area;
(4) Activities that would promote high-severity wildfires where the
species occurs;
(5) Activities that would reduce shade, reduce proximity to water,
and lower the water table such that the cooler, humid microenvironment
is affected; and
(6) Herbicide applications where the species occurs.
Regulating these activities will help conserve the species'
remaining populations; slow their rate of decline; and decrease
synergistic, negative effects from other stressors.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities,
including those described above, involving threatened plants under
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.72. With regard to threatened plants, a permit may be issued for
the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance propagation
or survival (control of nonnatives and fuel load), for economic
hardship, for botanical or horticultural exhibition, for

[[Page 67087]]

educational purposes, or other activities consistent with the purposes
of the Act. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
The Service recognizes the special and unique relationship with our
State natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation
of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered,
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist the Services in implementing all aspects of the Act.
In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that the Services shall
cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying
out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, under this proposed 4(d)
rule, any qualified employee or agent of a State conservation agency
which is a party to a cooperative agreement with the Service in
accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his or
her agency for such purposes, would be able to conduct activities
designed to conserve Bartram's stonecrop that may result in otherwise
prohibited activities without additional authorization.
Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and
protection of Bartram's stonecrop. However, interagency cooperation may
be further streamlined through planned programmatic consultations for
the species between Federal agencies and the Service. We ask the
public, particularly State agencies and other interested stakeholders
that may be affected by the proposed 4(d) rule, to provide comments and
suggestions regarding additional guidance and methods that the Service
could provide or use, respectively, to streamline the implementation of
this proposed 4(d) rule (see Information Requested, above).

III. Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Beardless Chinchweed and
Prudency Determination for Bartram's Stonecrop

Background

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior (i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used
throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on
a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and
habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific areas, we focus
on the specific features that are essential to support the life-history
needs of the species, including but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat
characteristic, or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition,
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological

[[Page 67088]]

features essential to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Act (published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section
515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated
Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures,
and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best
scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent
consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original sources of information as the
basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the Act's prohibitions on taking any individual of the
species, including taking caused by actions that affect habitat.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts, if new
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.

Prudency Determination

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
the Secretary may, but is not required to, determine that a designation
would not be prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
Beardless Chinchweed
We did not identify any of the factors above to apply to the
beardless chinchweed. Therefore, we find designation of critical
habitat is prudent for the species.
Bartram's Stonecrop
As described above, there is currently an imminent threat of take
attributed to collection or vandalism identified under Factor B for
this species, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is
expected to increase such threat because when we designate critical
habitat, we publish detailed maps and descriptions of species'
occurrences in the Federal Register, which in this case, could make
this species more vulnerable to the threats identified under Factor B.
Because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat
will likely increase the degree of threat to the species, we find that
designation of critical habitat is not prudent for Bartram's stonecrop.

Critical Habitat Determinability for Beardless Chinchweed

Having determined that designation is prudent for beardless
chinchweed, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we must find whether
critical habitat for the species is determinable. Our regulations at 50
CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when
one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where this species is
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is determinable for beardless chinchweed.

Physical or Biological Features for Beardless Chinchweed

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as
critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require
special management considerations or protection. For example, physical
features might include gravel of a particular size required for
spawning, alkali soil for seed germination, protective cover for
migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains
necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. Biological
features might include prey species,

[[Page 67089]]

forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or
nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species
consistent with conservation needs of the listed species. The features
may also be combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass
the relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a
characteristic needed to support the life history of the species. In
considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the
species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of beardless chinchweed from studies of this species'
habitat, ecology, and life history, as described below. We have
determined that the following physical or biological features are
essential to the conservation of beardless chinchweed:
(1) Native-dominated plant communities, consisting of:
(a) Plains, great basin, and semi-desert grasslands, oak savanna,
or Madrean evergreen woodland;
(b) Communities dominated by bunchgrasses with open spacing
(adjacent to and within 10 m (33 ft) of individual beardless
chinchweed) and with little competition from other plants; and
(c) Communities with plants for pollinator foraging and nesting
within 1 km (0.62 mi) of beardless chinchweed populations.
(2) 1,158 to 1,737 m (3,799 to 5,699 ft) elevation.
(3) Eroding limestone or granite bedrock substrate.
(4) Steep, south-facing, sunny to partially shaded hillslopes.
(5) The presence of pollinators (i.e., flies, bees, and
butterflies).
Space for individual and population growth is needed for beardless
chinchweed, including sites for germination, pollination, reproduction,
pollen and seed dispersal, and seed banks in the form of open, native-
dominated desert grasslands, oak savannas, and oak woodlands at 1,158
to 1,737 m (3,799 to 5,699 ft) in elevation (SEINet, entire). In
addition, plants need space on steep, south-facing, sunny to partially
shaded hillslopes, with eroding bedrock and open areas with little
competition from other plants. Native-dominated habitats have diverse
assemblages of vegetation, each with different-shaped and -sized canopy
and root system, which creates heterogeneity of form, height, and
patchiness and provides openness. Beardless chinchweed is presumed to
be a poor competitor due to its preference for this open habitat and
inability to find the species under dense vegetation conditions.
Pollination is necessary for effective fertilization, out-crossing, and
seed production in beardless chinchweed. Beardless chinchweed, like
other yellow-flowered composites, is most likely pollinated by bees,
flies, and butterflies. Many bees and butterflies can travel a distance
of 1 km (0.62 mi); consequently, adequate space for pollinators is
needed around beardless chinchweed populations to support pollinators
and, therefore, cross-pollination within and among populations and
subpopulations. In addition, open space is needed in the form of
seedbanks for population growth. Further, beardless chinchweed
populations need space with soil moisture and nutrients for individual
and population growth.
Beardless chinchweed needs multiple populations distributed across
its range that are large enough to withstand stochastic events, and
connectivity to reestablish extirpated populations. Species that are
widely-distributed are considered less susceptible to extinction and
more likely to be viable than species confined to small ranges (Carroll
et al. 2010, entire). Historically, there were 21 populations across
seven mountain ranges. Nine populations (and one subpopulation) have
been extirpated in the United States, and all populations are
extirpated from the Patagonia Mountains in the United States. This
leaves six populations across four mountains ranges covering an
occupied area of about 2 ha (5 ac) in the United States and six small
populations in Mexico. Further, two mountain ranges only have one
population each with fewer than 50 individuals. In addition, the other
two mountain ranges have only two populations each, both with fewer
than 50 individuals each. The current distribution of this species does
not represent its historical geographical distribution. Additional
populations are needed to increase the redundancy of the species to
secure the species from catastrophic events like wildfire and nonnative
grass encroachment. Increased representation in the form of ecological
environments are needed to secure the species against environmental
changes like increase temperatures, increase drought, and increased
evapotranspiration. Specifically, populations at higher altitudes are
likely needed to secure the species viability.
All populations need protection from wildfires of high severity and
of greater frequency than was known historically and from nonnative
grass encroachment. Further, all populations need protection from
stressors related to one or more of the following activities:
Recreation, road and trail maintenance, grazing, trampling, and mining.
As discussed above, these stressors are currently, or will in the near
future, impact all populations. Protection is needed from these
stressors to ensure the conservation of the species.
The minimum viable population size for this species is unknown.
General conservation biology indicates that at least 500 individual are
needed for a minimum viable population. Currently, 11 of the 12
populations have fewer than 50 individuals. In Arizona, there are
currently 387 individual beardless chinchweed spread across less than 2
ha (5 ac) within six extant populations spread across the four mountain
ranges. Space, in the form of habitat described above, is needed for an
increase in the number of populations and the number of individuals per
population.
Specific details about the physical or biological features
essential to this species are described above in the background section
and in the SSA report (Service 2018a).

Special Management Considerations or Protection for Beardless
Chinchweed

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of this species
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce
the following stressors: Altered fire regime, nonnative grass
encroachment, grazing, erosion, and burial (see Table 11 below).
Special management considerations or protection are required within
critical habitat areas to address these stressors. Management
activities that could

[[Page 67090]]

ameliorate these stressors include (but are not limited to): Prescribed
fire, fire breaks, reduction of nonnative grasses, promotion or
introduction of native forbs and grasses, clean equipment, exclosure
fences, and protection from erosion and burial. These management
activities will protect the physical or biological features for the
species by reducing or avoiding the encroachment or expansion of
nonnative grass species, promoting native vegetation, and preventing
the succession of vegetation such that open space and sun exposure are
reduced or eliminated.

Table 11--Features That May Require Special Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special management or
Features that may require special Stressors to features protection to address Features protected by
management stressor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native-dominated plant communities Altered fire regime; Fire breaks around Avoidance of encroachment
nonnative grasses; populations; prescribed of nonnatives from
grazing; road and fires; reduction of wildfires and drought;
trail maintenance. nonnative grasses; clean promotion of native
equipment to limit the species through natural
spread of nonnatives; fire regime; avoidance
promotion or introduction of introducing nonnative
of native forbs and species.
grasses.
Plants for pollinators............ Altered fire regime; Fire breaks around Avoidance of encroachment
nonnative grasses. populations; prescribed of nonnatives from
fires; reduction of wildfires and drought;
nonnative grasses; promotion of native
promotion or introduction species through natural
of native forbs and fire regime; avoidance
grasses. of introducing nonnative
species.
Open, sunny sites................. Altered fire regime; Prescribed fires; Elimination or reduction
nonnative grasses. reduction of nonnative of the loss of open
grasses; promotion or space and sun exposure.
introduction of native
forbs and grasses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat for Beardless Chinchweed

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. Sources of
data for this species include multiple databases maintained by the
Arizona Natural Heritage Program, existing endangered species reports,
and interviews with species experts. We have also reviewed available
information that pertains to the habitat requirements of this species.
In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the
habitat requirements of the species and identify specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing
and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species to be considered for designation as critical habitat. We are
proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area currently occupied by the species (i.e., at the time
of proposed listing). We also are proposing to designate specific areas
outside the geographical area currently occupied by the species that
were historically occupied, but are presently unoccupied, because we
have determined that a designation limited to occupied areas would be
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
The current distribution of beardless chinchweed is reduced from
its historical distribution to a level where it is in danger of
extinction. We anticipate that recovery will require continued
protection of existing populations and habitat, as well as
reestablishment of populations at a subset of previously occupied
habitats throughout the species' historical range in the United States.
Reestablishment of additional populations will help to ensure that
catastrophic events, such as wildfire, cannot simultaneously affect all
known populations. We have determined that it is reasonably certain
that the unoccupied areas will contribute to the conservation of the
species and contain one or more of the physical or biological features
that are essential to the conservation of the species.
Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing
The proposed critical habitat designation does not include all
populations known to have been occupied by the species historically;
instead, it includes all currently occupied areas within the historical
range that have retained the necessary physical or biological features
that will allow for the maintenance and expansion of these existing
populations. The following populations meet the definition of areas
occupied by the species at the time of listing: McCleary Canyon,
Audubon Research Ranch, Scotia Canyon, Coronado National Memorial, and
Ruby Road.
Areas Outside of the Geographic Range at the Time of Listing
Pena Blanca Lake, Summit Motorway, Copper Mountain, Lampshire Well,
Harshaw Creek, Flux Canyon, Washington Camp, Box Canyon, and Joe's
Canyon are within the historical range of beardless chinchweed, but are
not within the geographic range currently occupied by the species. We
consider these sites to be extirpated. For areas not occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we must demonstrate that these areas
are essential to the conservation of the species in order to include
them in our critical habitat designation. To determine if these areas
are essential for the conservation of beardless chinchweed, we
considered the life history, status, and conservation needs of the
species such as: (1) The importance of the site to the overall status
of the species to prevent extinction and contribute to future recovery
of beardless chinchweed; (2) whether the area could be restored to
support beardless chinchweed; (3) whether the site provides
connectivity between occupied sites for genetic exchange; and (4)
whether a population of the species could be reestablished in the area.
Of the unoccupied areas, Lampshire Well, Harshaw Creek, and
Washington Camp on U.S. Forest Service lands contain a mixture of
native and nonnative grasses that could be restored to native
conditions, thus making them suitable for reestablishment of the
species, and they are important to the overall status of the species.
The reestablishment of the Washington Camp population would reintroduce
the species into the Patagonia Mountains, where currently it is
extirpated. The reestablishment of beardless chinchweed into the
Patagonia Mountains would restore the historical range of the species
in terms of occupied mountain ranges. This area would provide key
representation and redundancy needed for conservation of

[[Page 67091]]

the species. Further, the addition of two reestablished populations in
the Canelo Hills would increase the redundancy of the species in this
area and reduce the chance that a catastrophic event would eliminate
all populations in this area. Currently, there is only one population
with 37 individuals in the Canelo Hills.
Of the remaining historical populations in the United States, Pena
Blanca Lake, Summit Motorway, Copper Mountain, Box Canyon, Joe's
Canyon, and Flux Canyon are heavily infested with nonnative grasses to
an extent where restoration of native vegetation is not likely
feasible. Reestablishment of the species to these historical sites is
not likely to be successful and, therefore, not likely to contribute to
the recovery of the species. Therefore, these remaining historical
sites are not included in the proposed designation of critical habitat.
In summary, for areas within the geographic area occupied by the
species at the time of listing (i.e., currently occupied), we
delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by evaluating the habitat
suitability of areas within the geographic area occupied at the time of
listing, and retaining those units that contain some or all of the
physical or biological features to support life-history functions
essential for conservation of the species.
For areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at
the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries by
evaluating areas not known to have been occupied at listing (i.e., that
are not currently occupied) but that are within the historical range of
the species to determine if they are essential to the survival and
recovery of the species. Essential areas are those that: (1) Serve to
extend an occupied unit; and (2) expand the geographic distribution
within areas not occupied at the time of listing across the historical
range of the species.
We conclude that the areas we are proposing for critical habitat
provide for the conservation of beardless chinchweed because they
include habitat for all extant populations and include habitat for
connectivity and dispersal opportunities within units. Such
opportunities for dispersal assist in maintaining the population
structure and distribution of the species. In addition, the unoccupied
units each contain one or more of the physical or biological features
and are likely to provide for the conservation of the species. Each of
the unoccupied areas are on lands managed by the Coronado National
Forest. The Forest Plan for the Coronado contains several important
guidelines that would contribute to the conservation of beardless
chinchweed including control of nonnative vegetation, promotion of
native grasses, and protections for species listed under the Endangered
Species Act (USDA Forest Service 2018). Designation of critical habitat
would facilitate the application of this guidance where it would do the
most good for the beardless chinchweed.
As a final step, we evaluated occupied units and refined the area
by evaluating the presence or absence of appropriate physical or
biological features. We selected the boundary of a unit to include 1 km
(0.62 mi) of foraging and reproductive habitat for pollinators that are
necessary for beardless chinchweed. We then mapped critical habitat
units using ArcMap version 10 (Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc.), a geographic information systems (GIS) program.
The areas we are proposing for designation as critical habitat
provide sufficient habitat for recruitment, pollinators, seed bank, and
seed dispersal. In general, the physical or biological features of
critical habitat are contained within 1 km (0.62 mi) of beardless
chinchweed plants within the population.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
the physical or biological features necessary for beardless chinchweed.
The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is
made final as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would
not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and
the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action
would affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent
critical habitat.
We are proposing for designation as critical habitat lands that we
have determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently
occupied) and contain one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the
species. We have determined that occupied areas are inadequate to
ensure the conservation of the species. Therefore, we have also
identified, and are proposing for designation of critical habitat,
unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Units are proposed for designation based on one or more of the
physical or biological features being present to support beardless
chinchweed life-history processes. Some units contain all of the
identified physical or biological features and support multiple life-
history processes. Some units contain only some of the physical or
biological features necessary to support beardless chinchweed'
particular use of that habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map, as modified
by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this
document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which the map is based available
to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2018-0104, on our internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm, and at the field office responsible for the
designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Beardless Chinchweed

We are proposing to designate approximately 10,604 ac (4,291 ha) in
eight units as critical habitat for beardless chinchweed. The critical
habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment
of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for beardless
chinchweed. The eight units we propose as critical habitat are listed
in Table 12.

Table 12--Proposed Critical Habitat Units and Occupancy of Beardless Chinchweed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied at the time of Size of unit in acres
Critical habitat unit listing Ownership (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--McCleary Canyon................... Yes.................... Forest Service......... 1,686 ac (682 ha).

[[Page 67092]]

2--Audubon Research Ranch............ Yes.................... Bureau of Land 1,170 ac (474 ha) BLM;
Management (BLM), 817 ac (331 ha) Forest
Forest Service, Service; 300 ac (121
Private (Audubon ha) private.
Research Ranch).
3--Scotia Canyon..................... Yes.................... Forest Service......... 855 ac (346 ha).
4--Coronado National Memorial........ Yes.................... National Park Service.. 2,109 ac (853 ha).
5--Lampshire Well.................... No..................... Forest Service......... 939 ac (380 ha).
6--Harshaw Creek..................... No..................... Forest Service......... 1,013 ac (410 ha).
7--Washington Camp................... No..................... Forest Service......... 939 ac (380 ha).
8--Ruby Road......................... Yes.................... Forest Service......... 776 ac (314 ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................ ....................... ....................... 10,604 ac (4,291 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for beardless chinchweed,
below.
Unit 1: McCleary Canyon
The McCleary Canyon unit occurs in the northeastern portion of the
Santa Rita Mountains in Pima County, Arizona, and is managed by the
U.S. Forest Service. This unit is 1,686 ac (682 ha) in size and is
currently occupied. The unit contains two extant populations: Gunsight
Pass and Wasp Canyon. Each population within the McCleary Canyon unit
supports 32 individual beardless chinchweed plants. The proposed
Rosemont Copper Mine occurs in this unit, and there is ongoing and
historical mining activity throughout the Santa Rita Mountains. This
unit also receives significant recreational pressure and livestock
grazing. The Gunsight Pass population is one of the few populations
within the range of beardless chinchweed where native grass species
dominate the site. The Wasp Canyon population has a mixture of native
and nonnative grass species. The McCleary Canyon unit provides at least
one of the following essential physical and biological features needed
for this species: Appropriate native plant communities (despite the
presence of some nonnative species), elevation, substrates, and slope
aspect. The physical and biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations including reduction in nonnative
grass presence, promotion of native forbs and grasses, removal of
livestock between April and October, and the creation of exclosures.
This unit includes habitat for species already listed under the Act,
including the jaguar (Panthera onca); ocelot (Leopardus (=Felis)
pardalis); Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida); yellow-
billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus); and Chiricahua leopard frog
(Lithobates chiricahuensis). This proposed unit would overlap with
designated critical habitat for jaguar.
Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch
The Audubon Research Ranch unit occurs in the northern portion of
the Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, and is managed by the
Audubon Society and some plants occur on the Coronado National Forest.
This unit is 2,287 ac (926 ha) in size and is currently occupied. The
O'Donnell Canyon population is currently extant but there was one
additional population, Post Canyon that occurred here historically. The
Audubon Research Ranch unit supports 37 individual beardless chinchweed
plants and is dominated by native grass species. The Audubon Research
Ranch unit provides the physical and biological features in this unit
may require special management considerations, including reduction in
nonnative grass presence, promotion of native forbs and grasses. This
unit includes habitat for species already listed under the Act: Jaguar,
ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard
frog, Gila chub (Gila intermedia), northern Mexican gartersnake
(Thamnophis eques megalops), and Huachuca water-umbel (Lilaeopsis
schaffneriana var. recurva). In addition, this unit includes designated
critical habitat for Chiricahua leopard frog, Gila chub, and Huachuca
water-umbel, and proposed critical habitat for northern Mexican
gartersnake.
Unit 3: Scotia Canyon
The Scotia Canyon unit occurs on the western slopes of the Huachuca
Mountains in Cochise County, Arizona, and is managed by the U.S. Forest
Service. This unit is 855 ac (346 ha) in size and is currently occupied
by beardless chinchweed. There is one extant population that is
estimated to contain 100 individual beardless chinchweed plants. This
unit has been impacted by historical mining, grazing, and wildfire.
High recreational use also occurs in this unit. The Scotia Canyon unit
is one of the few sites within the range of beardless chinchweed where
native grass species dominate the site. The Scotia Canyon unit provides
at least one of the following essential physical and biological
features needed for this species: Appropriate native plant communities,
elevation, substrates, and slope aspect. The physical and biological
features in this unit may require special management considerations,
including reduction in nonnative grass presence, promotion of native
forbs and grasses, reduction in road maintenance activity, removal of
livestock between April and October, and the creation of exclosures.
This unit includes habitat for species already listed under the Act:
Jaguar, ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua
leopard frog, northern Mexican gartersnake, and Huachuca water-umbel.
In addition, this unit includes designated critical habitat for jaguar
and Huachuca water-umbel, and proposed critical habitat for northern
Mexican gartersnake.
Unit 4: Coronado National Memorial
The Coronado National Memorial unit occurs in the southern portion
of the Huachuca Mountains in Cochise County, Arizona, and is managed by
the National Park Service. This unit is 2,109 ac (853 ha) in size and
is occupied. The unit contains two extant subpopulations: The visitor's
center and the State of Texas mine. The area around the visitor's
center supports approximately 180 individual beardless chinchweed
plants. Another 61 plants have been documented in the vicinity of the
State of Texas mine. Additionally, the historical subpopulation, Joe's
Canyon Trail, occurs within this unit and is not currently occupied.
This unit supports a high level of recreational use,

[[Page 67093]]

historical mining use, and ongoing impacts from wildfire. Portions of
the Coronado National Memorial unit are dominated by native grass
species, while other areas are a mixture of native and nonnative
grasses. The Coronado National Memorial unit provides at least one of
the following essential physical and biological features needed for
this species: Appropriate native plant communities (although there is a
nonnative presence), elevation, substrates, and slope aspect. The
physical and biological features in this unit may require special
management considerations, including reduction in nonnative grass
presence and promotion of native forbs and grasses. This unit includes
habitat for species already listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot,
Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog,
northern Mexican gartersnake, and Huachuca water-umbel. In addition,
this unit includes designated critical habitat for jaguar and Mexican
spotted owl.
Unit 5: Lampshire Well
The Lampshire Well unit occurs in the Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz
County, Arizona, and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. This unit
is 939 ac (380 ha) in size and is currently unoccupied. Historically,
beardless chinchweed populations occurred on this unit. This unit is
characterized by communities of mixed native and nonnative grasses, and
is subject to border activities (foot traffic and increased fire
ignition) and wildfire. This unit includes habitat for species already
listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-
billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, northern Mexican gartersnake,
Huachuca water-umbel, and Canelo Hills ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes
delitescens). In addition, this unit includes designated critical
habitat for jaguar and proposed critical habitat northern Mexican
gartersnake.
Although it is considered unoccupied, this unit contains all of the
physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the
species. This unit consists of a mix of native and nonnative grasses,
with scattered Quercus and Juniperus, at an elevation of 1,646 m (5,400
ft), on granitic substrate with steep slopes facing the southwest.
There are areas in this unit with more native grasses than nonnative
grasses. This unit is in Federal ownership managed by the U.S. Forest
Service. The U.S. Forest Service is committed to managing for the
recovery of listed species, reducing nonnative invasive species, and
managing fuel loads to reduce potential for high intensity wildfire
(USDA Forest Service 2018). The Lampshire Well unit is essential to the
conservation of the species because it provides for habitat and
population restoration opportunities, as well as provides habitat
connectivity for beardless chinchweed and its pollinators. Recovery of
this species will require new and expanded populations, and this unit
provides for this needed recovery habitat that will contribute to the
species' resiliency (larger and more populations), redundancy (more
populations across the range), and representation (opportunities for
increased genetic and environmental variation). We have determined that
this unoccupied unit contains one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
it is reasonably certain that it will contribute to the conservation of
the species.
Unit 6: Harshaw Creek
The Harshaw Creek unit occurs in the Canelo Hills in Santa Cruz
County, Arizona, and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. This unit
is 1,013 ac (410 ha) in size and is currently unoccupied. Historically,
beardless chinchweed populations occurred on this unit. This unit is
characterized by communities of mixed native and nonnative grasses, and
is subject to border activities and wildfire. This unit includes
habitat for species already listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot,
Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog,
northern Mexican gartersnake, Huachuca water-umbel, and Canelo Hills
ladies'-tresses. In addition, this unit includes designated critical
habitat for jaguar and proposed critical habitat for northern Mexican
gartersnake.
Although it is considered unoccupied, portions of this unit contain
all of the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species. This unit consists of a mix of native and
nonnative grasses, with scattered Quercus and Juniperus, at an
elevation of 1,494 m (4,900 ft), on granitic, rocky substrate with
steep slopes facing the southwest. There are areas in this unit with
more native grasses than nonnative grasses. This unit is in Federal
ownership managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The U.S. Forest Service
is committed to managing for the recovery of listed species, reducing
nonnative invasive species, and managing fuel loads to reduce potential
for high intensity wildfire (USDA Forest Service 2018). The Harshaw
Creek unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it
provides for habitat and population restoration opportunities, as well
as provides habitat connectivity for beardless chinchweed and its
pollinators. Recovery of this species will require new and expanded
populations, and this unit provides for this needed recovery habitat
that will contribute to the species' resiliency (larger and more
populations), redundancy (more populations across the range), and
representation (opportunities for increased genetic and environmental
variation). We have determined that this unoccupied unit contains one
or more of the physical or biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species and that it is reasonably certain that
it will contribute to the conservation of the species.
Unit 7: Washington Camp
The Washington Camp unit occurs in the northeastern portion of the
Patagonia Mountains in Santa Cruz County, Arizona, and is managed by
the U.S. Forest Service. This unit is 939 ac (380 ha) in size and is
currently unoccupied. This unit is the location of a number of proposed
mining activities and is also subject to border activities, recreation,
and wildfire. This unit is characterized by a mixture of native and
nonnative grass species. This unit includes habitat for species already
listed under the Act: Jaguar, ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-
billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, and northern Mexican
gartersnake. In addition, this unit includes designated critical
habitat for jaguar and Mexican spotted owl, and proposed critical
habitat for northern Mexican gartersnake.
Although it is considered unoccupied, portions of this unit contain
all of the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species. This unit consists of a mix of native and
nonnative grasses, with scattered Quercus and Juniperus, at an
elevation of 1,646 m (5,400 ft), on granitic substrate with steep
slopes facing the southwest. There are areas in this unit with more
native grasses than nonnative grasses. This unit is in Federal
ownership managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The U.S. Forest Service
is committed to managing for the recovery of listed species, reducing
nonnative invasive species, and managing fuel loads to reduce potential
for high intensity wildfire (USDA Forest Service 2018). The Washington
Camp unit is essential to the conservation of the species because it
provides for habitat and population restoration opportunities, as well
as provides habitat connectivity for beardless chinchweed and its
pollinators.

[[Page 67094]]

Recovery of this species will require new and expanded populations, and
this unit provides for this needed recovery habitat that will
contribute to the species' resiliency (larger and more populations),
redundancy (more populations across the range), and representation
(opportunities for increased genetic and environmental variation). We
have determined that this unoccupied unit contains one or more of the
physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation
of the species and that it is reasonably certain that it will
contribute to the conservation of the species.
Unit 8: Ruby Road
The Ruby Road unit occurs in the Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains in
Santa Cruz County, Arizona, and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
This unit is 776 ac (314 ha) in size and is currently occupied. There
is one extant population, Ruby Road, within this unit that supports
approximately 10 individual beardless chinchweed plants. Despite the
fact that nonnative grasses dominate this unit, beardless chinchweed is
able to overcome this competition by occurring in areas along a
roadside that is regularly maintained, which removes much of the
nonnative grass cover. This unit is subject to past mining activities,
border activities, recreation, grazing, and wildfire. The Ruby Road
unit currently provides at least one of the following essential
physical and biological features needed for this species: Appropriate
native plant communities (although there is a nonnative presence),
elevation, substrates, and slope aspect. The physical and biological
features in this unit may require special management considerations,
including reduction in nonnative grass presence, promotion of native
forbs and grasses, reduction in road maintenance activity, removal of
livestock between April and October, and creation of exclosures. This
unit includes habitat for species already listed under the Act: Jaguar,
ocelot, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard
frog, and northern Mexican gartersnake. In addition, this unit includes
designated critical habitat for critical habitat for jaguar, Mexican
spotted owl, and Chiricahua leopard frog.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final regulation with a revised definition of
destruction or adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976).
Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as
a whole for the conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency, do not require
section 7 consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
formal consultation on previously reviewed actions. These requirements
apply when the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or
control is authorized by law) and, subsequent to the previous
consultation, we have listed a new species or designated critical
habitat that may be affected by the Federal action, or the action has
been modified in a manner that affects the species or critical habitat
in a way not considered in the previous consultation. In such
situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation
of consultation with us, but the regulations also specify some
exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate consultation on specific
land management plans after subsequently listing a new species or
designating new critical habitat. See the regulations for a description
of those exceptions.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above,
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any

[[Page 67095]]

proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat,
activities involving a Federal action that may violate 7(a)(2) of the
Act by destroying or adversely modifying such designation.
Activities that the Services may, during a consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would remove native bunchgrass communities. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, livestock grazing;
fire management; trails construction and maintenance; infrastructure
and road construction and maintenance; recreation management; minerals
extraction and restoration; visitor use and management; and
construction and maintenance of border roads, fences, barriers, and
towers. These activities could eliminate or reduce open habitat
necessary for growth, seed production, seedbank, and pollinators of
beardless chinchweed.
(2) Actions that would result in the introduction, spread, or
augmentation of nonnative grass species. Such activities could include,
but are not limited to, livestock grazing; fire management; trails
construction and maintenance; infrastructure and road construction and
maintenance; recreation management; minerals extraction and
restoration; visitor use and management; and construction and
maintenance of border roads, fences, barriers, and towers. These
activities could increase the amount of nonnative grasses or introduce
nonnative grasses, which eliminate or reduce open habitat necessary for
growth, seed production, seedbank, and pollinators of beardless
chinchweed.
(3) Actions that would promote high-severity wildfires. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, recreation and
encouraging the encroachment of nonnative grasses. These activities
could eliminate or reduce open habitat necessary for growth, seed
production, seedbank, and pollinators of beardless chinchweed.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat
any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to
an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.'' There are no
Department of Defense lands within the proposed critical habitat
designation.

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor. At this time, we are not proposing any exclusions from
critical habitat.

Consideration of Economic Impacts

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The ``without
critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis,
which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden
imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially
affected by the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the
Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and local
regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of all
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e.,
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other
words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs.
These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary section
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for beardless chinchweed (IEc 2018, entire). We began
by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that
are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of
the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which
the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable
incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis
considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation)
and includes probable economic impacts where land and water use may be
subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management
practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of
the Federal listing status of the species. The screening analysis
filters out particular areas of critical habitat that are already
subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur
incremental economic impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows
us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors
that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the
designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether units are
unoccupied by the species and may

[[Page 67096]]

require additional management or conservation efforts as a result of
the critical habitat designation for the species that may incur
incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis, combined with
the information contained in our IEM, is what we consider our draft
economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation for
beardless chinchweed and is summarized in the narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities.
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of
economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely
affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the
probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for beardless chinchweed, first we
identified, in the IEM dated August 28, 2018 (Service 2018, entire),
probable incremental economic impacts associated with the following
categories of activities: (1) Federal lands management (National Park
Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management); (2) grazing
(U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management); (3) wild and
prescribed fire (National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of
Land Management); (4) groundwater pumping (U.S. Forest Service); (5)
mining (U.S. Forest Service); (6) fuels management (National Park
Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management); (7)
transportation (road construction and maintenance; National Park
Service, U.S. Forest Service); and (8) trampling and dust creation from
recreation and border protection activities (U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service). We considered
each industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered
whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat
designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any
Federal involvement; under the Act, the designation of critical habitat
only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. In areas where beardless chinchweed is present,
Federal agencies already are required to consult with the Service under
section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that
may affect the species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat
designation, consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the
existing consultation process.
In our IEM, we clarified the distinction between the effects that
would result from the species being listed and those attributable to
the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference between the jeopardy
and adverse modification standards) for beardless chinchweed critical
habitat. For species where the designation of critical habitat is
proposed concurrently with the listing, like beardless chinchweed, it
has been our experience that it is more difficult to discern which
conservation efforts are attributable to the species being listed and
those which would result solely from the designation of critical
habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in this case
help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical or biological
features identified for critical habitat are the same features
essential for the life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions
that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute
jeopardy to beardless chinchweed would also likely adversely affect the
essential physical or biological features of critical habitat. The IEM
outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between
baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the
designation of critical habitat for this species. This evaluation of
the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the
probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed designation of
critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation for beardless chinchweed
totals approximately 7,713 ac (3,121 ha, or 73 percent of the total
proposed critical habitat designation) of currently occupied habitat
and 2,891 ac (1,170 ha, or 27 percent of the total proposed critical
habitat designation) of unoccupied habitat (see Table 12, above). Every
unit of proposed critical habitat for beardless chinchweed overlaps
with the ranges of a number of currently listed species and designated
critical habitats. Therefore, the actual number of section 7
consultations is not expected to increase; however, the analysis within
these consultations would expand to consider effects to critical
habitat for the bearded chinchweed. Consequently, there would likely be
a small increase in the time needed to complete the consultation to
include the assessment of beardless chinchweed critical habitat units
(IEc 2018, entire). Section 7 consultations involving third parties
(State, Tribal, or private lands) are limited.
Based on the locations of the proposed critical habitat units and
the types of projects we typically evaluate for the Coronado National
Forest and the Coronado National Memorial, we estimate that there would
likely be 4 to 6 consultations annually that would include beardless
chinchweed. The entities that would incur incremental costs are Federal
agencies, because 97 percent of critical habitat is on Federal land.
In the 7,713 ac (3,121 ha) of occupied proposed critical habitat
(Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8), any actions that may affect the species or
its habitat would also affect proposed designated critical habitat.
Consequently, it is unlikely that any additional conservation efforts
would be recommended to address the adverse modification standard over
and above those recommended as necessary to avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of beardless chinchweed. Therefore, only
administrative costs are expected in these occupied units. While this
additional analysis will require time and resources by the Federal
action agency, the Service, and third parties, it is believed that, in
most circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative
in nature and would not be significant (IEc 2018, entire). In these
unoccupied areas, any conservation efforts or associated probable
impacts would be considered incremental effects attributed to the
critical habitat designation. In units occupied by the chinchweed, we
assume the additional administrative cost to address chinchweed
critical habitat in the consultation is minor, costing approximately
$5,100 per consultation (2017 dollars). For the proposed critical
habitat units that are currently occupied by beardless chinchweed
(Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8), we have not identified any ongoing or future
projects or actions that would warrant additional recommendations or
modifications to avoid adversely modifying critical habitat above those
that we would recommend for avoiding jeopardy. Therefore, project
modifications resulting from section 7 consultations in occupied units
are unlikely to be affected by the designation of critical habitat.
In unoccupied units, (units 5, 6, and 7) we assume the incremental
administrative effort will be greater on

[[Page 67097]]

a per consultation basis. Thus, we assume an incremental per
consultation administrative cost of $15,000 in unoccupied units (2017
dollars).
In unoccupied units, incremental project modifications are
possible. No known projects are currently scheduled to occur within the
areas proposed for designation; however, U.S. Forest Service staff
suggests there is always a possibility of future projects related to
grazing, transportation, mining, and recreation activities in this
region. We discuss potential costs resulting from these activities
below.
There are grazing allotments that overlap with unoccupied critical
habitat. However, only one allotment overlaps with unoccupied critical
habitat by more than 5 percent of the allotment's land area and two
allotments with less than 5 percent of unoccupied critical habitat. In
unoccupied units, the Service suggests alterations in amount or timing
of grazing activities are not required because the species is not
present. However, U.S. Forest Service may undertake range improvements
to reduce the loss of native plant communities (e.g., bunchgrass) in
the unoccupied critical habitat overlapping with grazing allotment
units. It estimates that range improvement projects in a given year may
cost the agency from $1,000 to $250,000.
During the improvement project, electric fencing (included in the
U.S. Forest Service cost estimate) would be installed temporarily to
exclude cattle. During this period, there could be a loss of forage,
depending on the extent of overlap with existing grazing allotments,
resulting in a temporary reduction in the number of animal unit months
(AUMs; a measure of the amount of forage consumed by one cow and calf
during one month) associated with the relevant allotment. The value of
grazing permits associated with allotments on Federal land can be used
to estimate the potential loss to ranchers during exclusion period. We
estimated a range of potential costs related to grazing, based on two
scenarios. In the low-end scenario, we assumed that AUM reductions
would only occur in allotments where proposed critical habitat accounts
for greater than 5 percent of the total allotment area. Otherwise,
ranchers are likely to be able to implement changes in practices that
avoid the need to reduce the amount of cattle grazed on the allotment,
and thus they avoid costs associated with lost AUMs. In the high-end
scenario, we assume that ranchers are unable to change practices, and
the loss in AUMs is proportional to the amount of overlap between
proposed critical habitat and the relevant allotment.
To identify the allotments overlapping proposed unoccupied units
and the number of AUMs permitted in each allotment, data was obtained
from U.S. Forest Service. That data was then used to calculate
potential AUM reduction for each allotment unit overlapping with
unoccupied critical habitat. Only one allotment (San Rafael) overlaps
with unoccupied critical habitat by more than 5 percent of the
allotment's land area. In this allotment, a temporary reduction of 402
AUMs is possible. For the remaining allotments, we assume no impact on
permitted AUMs in the low-end scenario. In the high-end scenario, a
temporary reduction of 747 AUMs is possible if all of the unoccupied
units are fenced to exclude cattle during range improvement efforts.
The cost of reducing AUMs from occupied critical habitat during
range improvement activities is unlikely to exceed $41,000 in the low-
end scenario or $76,000 in the high-end scenario (2017 dollars).
Impacts associated with reduced AUMs could be greatest in Unit 7
($27,000), followed by Unit 6 ($25,000) and Unit 5 ($24,000). These
estimates represent perpetuity values, thus the single year loss would
be a fraction of this amount.
Other activities that could overlap with unoccupied critical
habitat include mining, and road and trail construction. To avoid
adverse effects to critical habitat, U.S. Forest Service might
recommend moving these projects, if feasible, to avoid the proposed
units. This could result in the need to construct additional linear
miles of road. If projects can easily be moved to other areas, U.S.
Forest Service estimates total, on-time costs to the agency, as well as
the project proponents, in the range of $0 to $500,000. Where avoidance
of critical habitat is prohibitively expensive, U.S. Forest Service
states that it would instead recommend monitoring and subsequent
treatment for the introduction or spread of invasive plants due to
project activities. The costs to U.S. Forest Service and project
proponents of these activities might range from $1,000 to $500,000. For
projects that result in a significant amount of vegetation that would
not regrow in a timely manner (e.g., 2 years), U.S. Forest Service
might require more all-inclusive restoration, reclamation, and
revegetation of the disturbed project footprints. In these cases, costs
to U.S. Forest Service and project proponents might range from $10,000
to $1,000,000.
The Service estimates a total of four to six consultations are
likely to occur in a given year in areas proposed for designation. As a
conservative estimate (i.e., more likely to overestimate than
underestimate costs), we assume that six consultations will occur and
all of the consultations will be formal. The total administrative cost
of these consultations is estimated to be $48,000 (IEc 2018, p. 16),
including costs to the Service, the Federal action agency, and third
parties. Incremental project modifications resulting solely from the
designation of critical habitat are unlikely in occupied critical
habitat. In unoccupied units, which are all managed by the U.S. Forest
Service, projects associated with grazing, mining, road or trail
construction and maintenance, and range improvements are possible. The
costs per project, including costs to the U.S. Forest Service and
State, local, or private project proponents, might range from $0
(simply moving a project to avoid critical habitat where the overlap
between the project and critical habitat is minor) to $1,000,000
(projects that result in a significant amount of surface disturbance,
such as a new mining proposal in an unoccupied unit); however, it is
very difficult to accurately predict these potential costs as often
they are significantly reduced through the section 7 consultation
process. Assuming that no more than six consultations, and therefore
projects, are likely in a given year, the section 7 impacts of the
proposed regulation are unlikely to exceed $10 million in a given year
(IEc 2018, p. 16). However, as stated above, no known projects are
currently scheduled to occur within the unoccupied areas proposed for
designation, thus these estimated impacts are meant to capture a
conservative high-end estimate of potential impacts. Therefore, our
economic screening analysis indicates the incremental costs associated
with critical habitat are unlikely to exceed $100 million in any single
year, and, therefore, would not be significant.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the draft economic analysis, as well as all aspects of the
proposed rule. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents
to incorporate or address information we receive during the public
comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical
habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area
outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion
will not result in the extinction of this species.

[[Page 67098]]

Exclusions

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared an analysis of the probable
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and
related factors. The following land use sectors potentially occur in
one or more of the proposed critical habitat units for beardless
chinchweed: Border protection, conservation/restoration, fire
management, forest management, grazing, mining, recreation, and
transportation (road and trail construction and maintenance). The
majority of proposed critical habitat units are on federally owned or
managed lands.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any
additional economic impact information we receive through the public
comment period, and as such areas may be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this
proposal, we have determined that the lands within the proposed
designation of critical habitat for beardless chinchweed are not owned
or managed by the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland
Security. In addition, we did not find any potential national security
impacts resulting from this proposed designation; therefore, we
anticipate no impact on national security. However, during the
development of a final designation, we will consider any additional
information on any potential national security impacts we receive
through the public comment period, and as such areas may be excluded
from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether there are
permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as
HCPs, safe harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with
assurances, or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements
and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the existence
of tribal conservation plans and partnerships and consider the
government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal
entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because
of the designation. In preparing this proposal, we have determined that
there are currently no HCPs or other management plans for beardless
chinchweed, and the proposed designation does not include any tribal
lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands,
partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation.
During the development of a final designation, we will consider any
additional information on any impacts to tribal resources,
partnerships, or conservation plans that we receive through the public
comment period, and as such areas may be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.

IV. Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244).
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to NEPA in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). Because neither
species occurs within the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit, we are not
preparing any additional NEPA analysis.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
We are not aware of any tribally owned lands that are currently
occupied by beardless chinchweed or Bartram's stonecrop or that are
unoccupied lands that are essential to the conservation of beardless
chinchweed. Therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical
habitat for beardless chinchweed on tribal lands. While there are no
tribally owned lands within the proposed designation of critical
habitat, certain lands proposed for designation may include areas that
are culturally

[[Page 67099]]

significant to the Tohono O'odam Tribe. We have sought government-to-
government consultation (government-to-government consultation, not
section 7 consultation) with the tribe during the development of the
SSA report and this proposed rule. This may result in the modification
of some actions to conserve and protect areas of cultural significance.
On October 23, 2017, we sent a letter to the Tohono O'odam Tribe
requesting information, explaining the SSA process, describing the
upcoming rulemaking, and inviting the Tribe to participate in the SSA
process. To date, we have not received a response from the Tohono
O'odam Tribe. Upon publication of the proposed rule, we will notify the
Tohono O'odam Tribe of its availability.
Executive Order 13771
We do not believe this proposed rule is an E.O. 13771 (``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'') (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017) regulatory action because we believe this rule is not significant
under E.O. 12866; however, the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has waived their review regarding their E.O. 12866 significance
determination of this proposed rule.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has waived their review regarding
their significance determination of this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) that would be imposed
by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that
only Federal action agencies would be directly regulated by this
designation. There is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the
potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal
agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities
would be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies
that, if adopted, the proposed critical habitat designation will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if adopted, the proposed
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when undertaking
certain actions. In our draft economic analysis, we did not find that
the designation of this proposed critical habitat would significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use due to the absence of any
energy supply or distribution lines in the proposed critical habitat
designation. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action,
and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation,

[[Page 67100]]

statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon
State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and
includes both ``Federal intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal
private sector mandates.'' These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-
(7). ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that
``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments'' with two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal
assistance.'' It also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-
existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided
annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement
authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease,
the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,'' and the
State, local, or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and
Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support
Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation
that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except
(i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because the lands proposed for
critical habitat designation are primarily Federal lands, with a small
amount of private land; small governments would be affected only to the
extent that any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other
authorized activities must ensure that their actions would not
adversely affect the designated critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.
Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for beardless chinchweed in a takings implications assessment.
The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on
private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical
habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership, or establish any closures of, or restrictions on use of
or access to, the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward.
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify designated
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed
and concludes that this proposed designation of critical habitat for
beardless chinchweed would not pose significant takings implications
for lands within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource agencies in Arizona. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have
substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the
species are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological
features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist
these local governments in long-range planning (because these local
governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species,
this proposed rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed
areas of critical habitat are presented on a map, and the proposed rule
provides several options for the interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.

[[Page 67101]]

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

V. Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants,
by adding entries for ``Graptopetalum bartramii'' and ``Pectis
imberbis'' in alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as set
forth below:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Scientific name Common name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Graptopetalum bartramii......... Bartram's Wherever found.... T................. [Federal Register
stonecrop. citation when
published as a
final rule]

* * * * * * *
Pectis imberbis................. Beardless Wherever found.... E................. [Federal Register
chinchweed. citation when
published as a
final rule]

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Add Sec. 17.73 to read as follows:

Sec. 17.73 Special rules--flowering plants.

(a) Graptopetalum bartramii (Bartram's stonecrop).
(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions apply to Graptopetalum
bartramii, except as provided under paragraph (a)(2) of this section:
(i) Import or export. It is unlawful to import or to export any
Graptopetalum bartramii. Any shipment in transit through the United
States is an importation and an exportation, whether or not it has
entered the country for customs purposes.
(ii) Remove and reduce to possession. It is unlawful to remove and
reduce to possession the species from areas under Federal jurisdiction;
maliciously damage or destroy the species on any such area; or remove,
cut, dig up, or damage or destroy the species on any other area in
knowing violation of any law or regulation of any State or in the
course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law.
(iii) Interstate or foreign commerce. It is unlawful to deliver,
receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce,
by any means whatsoever, and in the course of a commercial activity,
any Graptopetalum bartramii.
(iv) Sale or offer for sale. (A) It is unlawful to sell or to offer
for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any Graptopetalum bartramii.
(B) An advertisement for the sale of any Graptopetalum bartramii
which carries a warning to the effect that no sale may be consummated
until a permit has been obtained from the Service, shall not be
considered an offer for sale within the meaning of this paragraph.
(v) It is unlawful to attempt to commit, solicit another to commit,
or cause to be committed, any of the acts described in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. The following exceptions from
prohibitions apply to Graptopetalum bartramii:
(i) A person may apply for a permit in accordance with 50 CFR 17.72
that authorizes an activity otherwise prohibited by this paragraph for
Graptopetalum bartramii.
(ii)(A) Any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal
land management agency, or a State conservation agency, who is
designated by that agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the
course of official duties, remove and reduce to possession
Graptopetalum bartramii from areas under Federal jurisdiction without a
permit if such action is necessary to:
(1) Care for a damaged or diseased specimen;
(2) Dispose of a dead specimen; or
(3) Salvage a dead specimen which may be useful for scientific
study.
(B) Any removal and reduction to possession pursuant to this
paragraph must be reported in writing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Law Enforcement, P.O. Box 28006, Washington, DC
20005, within 5 days. The specimen may only be retained, disposed of,
or salvaged in accordance with written directions from the Service.
(iii) Any qualified employee or agent of the Service or of a State
conservation agency which is a party to a cooperative agreement with
the Service in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is
designated by that agency for such purposes, may, when acting in the
course of official duties, remove, cut, dig up, damage, or destroy
Graptopetalum bartramii on areas under Federal jurisdiction.

[[Page 67102]]

(b) [Reserved].
0
4. In Sec. 17.96, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for ``Pectis
imberbis (beardless chinchweed),'' in alphabetical order under Family
Asteraceae, to read as follows:

Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.

(a) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
Family Asteraceae: Pectis imberbis (beardless chinchweed)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Cochise, Pima, and
Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, on the map below.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Pectis imberbis consist of the
following components:
(i) Native-dominated plant communities, consisting of:
(A) Plains, great basin, and semi-desert grasslands, oak savanna,
or Madrean evergreen woodland;
(B) Communities dominated by bunchgrasses with open spacing
(adjacent to and within 10 meters (33 feet) of individual Pectis
imberbis plants) and with little competition from other plants; and
(C) Communities with plants for pollinator foraging and nesting
within 1 kilometer (0.62 miles) of Pectis imberbis populations.
(ii) 1,158 to 1,737 meters (3,799 to 5,699 feet) elevation.
(iii) Eroding limestone or granite bedrock substrate.
(iv) Steep, south-facing, sunny to partially shaded hillslopes.
(v) The presence of pollinators (i.e., flies, bees, and
butterflies).
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using ArcMap version 10 (Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc.), a Geographic Information Systems program on a base of
USA Topo Maps. Critical habitat units were then mapped using NAD 1983,
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 12N coordinates. The map in
this entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text,
establishes the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The
coordinates or plot points or both on which the map is based are
available to the public at the Service's internet site at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm, at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104, and at the field
office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices,
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Unit 1: McCleary Canyon, Pima County, Arizona. Unit 1 consists
of 682 hectares (1,686 acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands.
(6) Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
Unit 2 consists of 926 hectares (2,287 acres) of land, of which 331
hectares (817 acres) are owned by the U.S. Forest Service, 474 hectares
(1,686 acres) by the Bureau of Land Management, and 121 hectares (300
acres) by the Audubon Research Ranch.
(7) Unit 3: Scotia Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona. Unit 3 consists
of 346 hectares (855 acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands.
(8) Unit 4: Coronado National Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona.
Unit 4 consists of 853 hectares (2,109 acres) of National Park Service
lands.
(9) Unit 5: Lampshire Well, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 5
consists of 380 hectares (939 acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands.
(10) Unit 6: Harshaw Creek, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 6
consists of 410 hectares (1,013 acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands.
(11) Unit 7: Washington Camp, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 7
consists of 380 hectares (939 acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands.
(12) Unit 8: Ruby Road, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Unit 8 consists
of 314 hectares (776 acres) of U.S. Forest Service lands.
(13) Map of Units 1 through 8 follows:

[[Page 67103]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE19.000

[[Page 67104]]

* * * * *

Dated: November 26, 2019
Margaret E. Everson
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising
the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-26210 Filed 12-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P