[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31830-31868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12005]
[[Page 31829]]
Vol. 86
Tuesday,
No. 113
June 15, 2021
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for
the Beardless Chinchweed and Designation of Critical Habitat; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 15, 2021 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 31830]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 212]
RIN 1018-BD35
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status
for the Beardless Chinchweed and Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
that the beardless chinchweed (Pectis imberbis) is an endangered
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, and
designate critical habitat. In total, approximately 10,604 acres (4,291
hectares) in Pima, Cochise, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, fall
within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation.
DATES: This rule is effective July 15, 2021.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104 and at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/. Comments and materials we received, as well as
supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available
for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104.
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical
habitat designation and are available at http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104, at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/
, and at the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information
that we developed for this critical habitat designation will also be
available at the 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, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 9828 North 31st
Avenue, #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517. 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, a species may be
listed as endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened
species can only be completed by issuing a rule. Further, under the
Act, any species that is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species requires critical habitat to be designated, to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable. Designations and revisions of critical
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. This rule lists the beardless chinchweed
(Pectis imberbis) as an endangered species and designates critical
habitat for this species under the Act.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may 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. We have determined that the beardless chinchweed
faces the following threats: Competition from a nonnative grass species
(Factors A and E); altered fire regime exacerbated by nonnative grass
invasion (Factors A and E); altered precipitation, drought, and
temperature (Factors A and E); erosion, sedimentation and burial from
road and trail maintenance, mining, livestock trampling and soil
disturbance, and post-wildfire runoff (Factors A and E); summer and
fall 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
threats such that the species does not meet the Act's definition of an
endangered or a threatened species (Factor D).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. 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 impacts 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.
The critical habitat we are designating in this rule, in eight
units comprising 10,604 acres (4,291 hectares), constitutes our current
best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the beardless chinchweed.
Economic analysis. In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
we prepared an economic analysis of the impacts of designating critical
habitat. We made the draft economic analysis available for public
comments on December 6, 2019 (84 FR 67060).
Peer review and public comment. We sought the expert opinions of
four independent and knowledgeable specialists regarding the species
status assessment (SSA) report and received responses from two
reviewers. These peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods
and conclusions, and provided additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions to improve the SSA. We also considered all comments and
information we received from the public during the comment period for
the proposed listing of, and the proposed designation of critical
habitat for, the beardless chinchweed.
Previous Federal Actions
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the beardless chinchweed. The SSA team was composed of Service
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts
of past, present, and future
[[Page 31831]]
factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
On December 6, 2019, we published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule (84 FR 67060) to list the beardless chinchweed as an
endangered species and to designate critical habitat for the species
under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The December 6, 2019, rule also
proposed to list Bartram's stonecrop (Graptopetalum bartramii) as a
threatened species with a rule under section 4(d) of the Act. We will
address our proposal to list Bartram's stonecrop (Graptopetalum
bartramii) as a threatened species with a rule issued under section
4(d) of the Act in a separate, future Federal Register document. Please
refer to that proposed rule for a detailed description of previous
Federal actions concerning the beardless chinchweed that occurred prior
to the proposal's publication.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered
comments from the public on our December 6, 2019, proposed rule
regarding beardless chinchweed. We updated the beardless chinchweed SSA
report (to version 2.0) based on comments and additional information
provided during the comment period, and those updates are reflected in
this final rule, as follows:
(1) We included updated survey information provided to the Service
including the 2019 Coronado National Memorial indicating an increase in
the Visitor Center population, and other reports of additional
occurrences received.
(2) We included additional information regarding critical habitat
designation along the United States/Mexico border and coordination with
Customs and Border Protection.
(3) We included additional information we received regarding the
date of discovery of a population.
(4) We made many small, nonsubstantive clarifications and
corrections throughout the SSA report and this rule, including under
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, in order to ensure better
consistency, clarify some information, and update or add new
references.
However, the information we received during the comment period for
the proposed rule did not change our determination that the beardless
chinchweed is an endangered species.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In our December 6, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 67060), we requested
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by
February 4, 2020. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on the proposed determination,
proposed designation of critical habitat, and draft economic analysis.
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the
Arizona Daily Star on December 9, 2019, and the Sierra Vista Herald on
December 13, 2019. We did not receive any requests for a public
hearing. All substantive information provided during the comment period
either has been incorporated directly into the final rule or is
addressed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of four
appropriate specialists regarding the SSA report. We received responses
from two specialists, which informed the SSA report and this final
rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing
determinations and critical habitat designations are based on
scientifically sound data, conclusions, and analyses. The peer
reviewers have expertise in the biology of, habitat of, and threats to
the species.
We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the beardless
chinchweed and its critical habitat. The peer reviewers generally
concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the SSA report
and final rule. Peer reviewer comments are incorporated into the SSA
report and this final rule as appropriate.
Public Comments
We received 17 public comments in response to the proposed rule. We
reviewed all comments we received during the public comment period for
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule.
Nine comments provided substantive comments or new information
concerning the proposed listing and designation of critical habitat for
the beardless chinchweed. Below, we provide a summary of public
comments we received; however, comments that we incorporated as changes
into the final rule, comments outside the scope of the proposed rule,
and those without supporting information did not warrant an explicit
response and, thus, are not presented here. Identical or similar
comments have been consolidated and a single response provided.
(1) Comment: A commenter claimed that we did not notify the public
of the imminent listing of the beardless chinchweed and the public
needs more time to respond.
Response: On August 8, 2012, we announced our 90-day finding that a
petition to list beardless chinchweed as endangered or threatened under
the Act presented substantial information indicating that listing of
the species may be warranted (77 FR 47352). At that time, we requested
data and information from the public regarding the species to inform
our status review and determination if listing is warranted. In
response to publication of the 90-day finding, increased interest in
beardless chinchweed and its status led to additional surveys and
research beginning in 2013. On October 23, 2017, we sent a letter to
interested parties, landowners, and Tribes indicating that a species
status assessment would be conducted for beardless chinchweed to inform
our listing determination, and we again requested scientific and
commercial data or other information on the species.
In addition, the species has been included on our National Listing
Workplan, which is publicly available on our website, since 2016. We
updated the workplan in May 2019 and listed the 12-month finding for
beardless chinchweed as a FY 2018 carryover action. The court-ordered
settlement agreement of October 11, 2019, that stipulates delivery of a
12-month finding to the Federal Register by November 29, 2019, is also
publicly available.
Finally, the December 6, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 67060) opened a
60-day public comment period on the proposed listing and critical
habitat designation for the beardless chinchweed.
As such, we complied with all requirements of the Act and conclude
that the public was afforded adequate notice of the proposed listing of
the beardless chinchweed.
(2) Comment: Three commenters stated that relying on the
conservation biology concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to make the proposed listing determination is improper
as they are not found in the
[[Page 31832]]
Act or the Service's implementing regulations and their meanings are
uncertain, creating confusion if criteria for listing are being
followed.
Response: The SSA framework is an analytical approach developed by
the Service to deliver foundational science for informing decisions
under the Act (Smith et al. 2018, entire). The SSA characterizes
species viability (defined as the ability to sustain populations in the
wild over time) based on the best scientific understanding of current
and future abundance and distribution within the species' ecological
settings using the conservation biology principles of resiliency,
redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 308-311).
To sustain populations over time, a species must have the capacity to
withstand: (1) Environmental and demographic stochasticity and
disturbances (resiliency), (2) catastrophes (redundancy), and (3) novel
changes in its biological and physical environment (representation). A
species with a high degree of resiliency, representation, and
redundancy is better able to adapt to novel changes and to tolerate
environmental stochasticity and catastrophes. In general, species
viability will increase and the risk of extinction will decrease with
increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al.
2018, p. 306). The SSA provides decision-makers with a scientifically
rigorous characterization of a species' status and the likelihood that
the species will sustain populations over time, along with key
uncertainties in that characterization. The beardless chinchweed SSA
provides the best available scientific information to guide a
determination of whether or not the beardless chinchweed is in danger
of extinction now or in the foreseeable future.
Notwithstanding our use of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation as scientific concepts helpful in assessing and
describing a species' viability and extinction risk, we adhere to all
requirements of the Act in making our listing determinations. This
includes applying the Act's definitions of an endangered species and a
threatened species, as well as an assessment of the 5 listing factors
(see Regulatory Framework, below).
(3) Comment: A commenter noted that, in general, attempts to locate
beardless chinchweed since 1983 have been uncommon and that more
surveys are needed before a listing decision is made. The commenter
suggested that more surveys for beardless chinchweed would result in
occurrences discovered, as beardless chinchweed is often difficult to
detect.
Response: As required by the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)), we based
the listing decision on the best available scientific and commercial
information. We have worked in partnership with numerous agencies and
organizations to visit most of the known U.S. locations of beardless
chinchweed at least once (with some long-term monitoring initiated), as
well as a portion of the Mexico populations. Although information from
1983-2010 is limited, we used the best available information regarding
the status of the species to assess the species' current and future
conditions. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service
(NPS), Service, industry surveyors, and other researchers gathering
information on beardless chinchweed have increased survey efforts since
2010 in suitable habitat in Arizona and Mexico. At a minimum, recent
surveys and research on beardless chinchweed have occurred each year
from 2010 to 2017, in 2019, and in 2020. Despite the difficulty of
detecting beardless chinchweed, trained botanists are conducting
surveys during the bloom period, enhancing the probability of
detection.
(4) Comment: A commenter stated that the available data are
insufficient to show a true decline in the species and that no
statistically valid historical population data and minimal recent data
were used in the analysis; therefore, there is no credible scientific
way to compare beardless chinchweed population health over time.
Response: When making a listing decision for a species, the Service
must determine if the best available information indicates that a
species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (an endangered species) or likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (a threatened species). Although
species petitioned for listing or under assessment by the Service often
show a decline in population abundance or distribution, such a decline
is not required for the determination of endangered or threatened
status for the species.
The best available information for beardless chinchweed indicates
21 separate historical populations across the range of the species. Of
these, nine populations have been extirpated, and six populations are
extant in southern Arizona. Of the remaining populations in southern
Arizona, several populations with historical counts are now reduced in
number. For example, 89 individuals occurred along Ruby Road in 1985,
and after four separate surveys, 10 individuals were found along this
road in 2015. Similarly, the Scotia Canyon population contained 122
individuals in 1993, 35 in 2017, and 40 in 2020. Other populations
could not be relocated at all, despite numerous species-specific
surveys, and they are presumed extirpated. The condition of six
additional populations in Mexico is unknown, but we have concluded the
populations in Mexico are extant for the purposes of our analyses.
Because of the current low numbers of the species, its limited
distribution, and the past, current, and ongoing threats to its
existence, we determine that the species is in danger of extinction.
(5) Comment: A commenter claimed the Service suppresses location
information to bolster the appearance of larger than actual numbers of
extirpations and predicts additional populations occur on the west
flank of the Huachuca Mountains. The commenter also identified Coronado
Cave Trail, Joe's Canyon Trail, and an area west of the State of Texas
Mine populations as extant patches. The commenter noted observations of
beardless chinchweed in Box Canyon (Westland Resources 2010) and near
Washington Camp by NPS in 2015 and recommended we describe the two
populations as extant.
Response: The Service has incorporated the best available
information regarding beardless chinchweed distribution and abundance,
including all historical and current populations. Explicit and precise
location information is not included in the SSA in order to reduce or
avoid potential risk to the species from plant collection or trampling
due to additional foot traffic. The examples mentioned (Coronado Cave
Trail, Joe's Canyon Trail, State of Texas Mine, Washington Camp, and
Box Canyon Road) are addressed in the SSA and December 6, 2019,
proposed rule (84 FR 67060), and the number of extirpated populations
remains the same. We have incorporated the additional occurrence
information for Joe's Canyon Trail, State of Texas Mine, and Washington
Camp into the SSA report. The occurrence information for the Coronado
Cave Trail was included in two other reports cited in the SSA (Westland
2016, p. 4; Sebesta per. comm. 2017).
The Joe's Canyon Trail subpopulation was noted in 1992 but was not
observed on three surveys since 2014 (USFWS 2014a, p. 4; Westland 2016,
p.4). The commenter notes he observed 30 vigorous plants (at least 53
individuals) at the site in 2012. However, there is no
[[Page 31833]]
official report, note, photograph, or herbarium documentation of this
2012 sighting. Based on the species' lack of occurrence during three
surveys since 2014, we continue to categorize the Joe's Canyon Trail
subpopulation as extirpated. We note the Joe's Canyon area is included
in the critical habitat designation and look forward to conservation
efforts and additional surveys of the site.
The commenter notes he has information regarding a 2015 beardless
chinchweed observation by NPS staff near the Washington Camp
population. We are aware of, and include in the SSA, a notification of
beardless chinchweed possibly being located in 2014 along a road near
the historical location of the Washington Camp population (Buckley
2020, pers. comm.). However, there is no written report, communication
to a natural resource agency or database, field notes, photograph, or
herbarium documentation of the possible 2015 sighting referenced by the
commenter. Other surveys at the Washington Camp site in the Patagonia
Mountains were unsuccessful in locating beardless chinchweed (Service
2014a, pp. 1-2; Haskins and Murray 2017, pp. 2-3). Therefore, the
additional information does not alter our conclusion, that the
Washington Camp population is extirpated.
We have visited the Box Canyon site on numerous occasions, and no
beardless chinchweed plants have been relocated. The Westland 2010 Box
Canyon survey report noted in the comment refers to 20 individuals of
another species, Graptopetalum bartramii (Bartram's stonecrop), but
does not note beardless chinchweed occurrence. A 2012 report by
Westland notes that in 49 person-days of survey for beardless
chinchweed in suitable habitat, no plants were located except within
the McCleary Canyon area.
(6) Comment: A commenter claimed the granite substrate is
incorrectly identified habitat for beardless chinchweed but additional
substrates, such as mudstones and rhyolite, likely play a role in the
species' habitat. The commenter predicted there might be more beardless
chinchweed on the west flank of the Huachuca Mountains.
Response: Beardless chinchweed's known occurrences have been found
on sunny to partly shaded southern exposures, on eroding limestone or
granite soils and rock outcrops. The NPS is currently working on a
beardless chinchweed and associated geology map, including additional
substrates of mudstones and rhyolite. We expect this map, and the
commenter's observations, will be very useful in determining where to
conduct future surveys. Between 1990 and 1994, Bowers and McLaughlin
took 41 botanical trips into the Huachuca Mountains, including the west
flank, adding to the long history of botanical collection there (Bowers
and McLaughlin 1996, p. 70). Beardless chinchweed has not been reported
from this area at any time historically.
(7) Comment: A commenter mentioned that the assumptions regarding
the beardless chinchweed's population size and habitat degradation in
Mexico might be inaccurate as the areas are remote and relatively
undisturbed.
Response: We relied on the best available data regarding population
size and habitat conditions in Mexico. The last report of beardless
chinchweed in Mexico was from 1940. There are numerous botanical
collection trips in Mexico annually, and no beardless chinchweed
occurrences have been reported. We sent inquiries regarding this
species to 11 researchers familiar with the flora of Chihuahua and
Sonora in 2017 and received no information on the status of the species
in Mexico. Surveys in the 1990s and in 2017 and 2018 at historical and
potential beardless chinchweed locations in Sonora, Mexico, revealed no
beardless chinchweed. The lack of beardless chinchweed in Sonora may be
associated with severe overgrazing (Sanchez-Escalante 2019, p. 17).
Five of the six populations in Arizona contain fewer than 50
individuals. Therefore, we concluded that the populations in Mexico, if
extant, contain fewer than 50 individuals. In Mexico, rapid expansion
of nonnative, invasive plant species and degradation of native plant
communities have potential to invade large areas of northern Mexico,
including beardless chinchweed sites. We made these conclusions based
on the best available science and welcome additional information to
inform future Service actions regarding the beardless chinchweed.
(8) Comment: A commenter stated that much is unknown about
beardless chinchweed and near-future additional surveys in Arizona and
Mexico are required to ensure the need for listing and possible
resultant economic loss.
Response: We are required by the Act to make our determination
solely on the basis of the best commercial and scientific information
available at the time, but we do conduct an economic analysis of the
impacts of critical habitat designation. The screening memo outlining
the results of that analysis is available as a supporting document (IEc
2018, entire). We used the best available information on the range of
beardless chinchweed in the SSA report, the December 6, 2019, proposed
rule (84 FR 67060), and this final rule. Species-specific surveys have
been conducted in the mountain ranges in the U.S. portion of the
beardless chinchweed's range. We conclude it is unlikely that large
populations remain unaccounted for therein. If we receive new
information in the future as a result of additional surveys, we will
analyze such information in the course of developing a recovery plan
for the species or in 5-year reviews of its status. If we determine
that the new information indicates that the species no longer meets the
definition of an endangered species, we will promptly begin rulemaking
to assign the correct status.
(9) Comment: A commenter noted that hundreds of plants and animals
are at the northern fringe of their range in southern Arizona and are
common and safe in Mexico.
Response: Historical distributions of beardless chinchweed are
focused in southern Arizona, with some disjunct populations in northern
Mexico. There have been surveys for this species in Mexico, and
numerous biologists from Mexico have been consulted regarding its
presence in the country. Habitat has been altered extensively in
Mexico, and no populations of the beardless chinchweed have been
located there; therefore, we do not find the species to be common or
safe in Mexico.
(10) Comment: A commenter claimed that surveys by Sanchez-Escalante
in Mexico were rushed and occurred in the wrong habitat and at the
wrong time of year.
Response: The researcher Sanchez-Escalante spent 35 days exploring
55 sites in Sonora and Chihuahua and covered 6,900 kilometers with a
team of trained botanists with the specific aim of locating populations
of six identified rare plant species in appropriate habitats. No
beardless chinchweed plants were located in 10 separate suitable
habitats searched, including all historical locations in Sonora. These
surveys were conducted during the flowering season in late September
when the plants are most visible. Therefore, we conclude the Sanchez-
Escalante surveys were conducted using appropriate methods. Thus, we
base our current understanding of the beardless chinchweed occurrences
in Sonora and Chihuahua on the best available scientific information.
(11) Comment: A commenter mentioned regular visitation is necessary
to attain information on bloom period, seed production,
[[Page 31834]]
reproduction method, pollinators, precipitation and growth
relationships, and genetic diversity.
Response: We are aware of limited information regarding the life
history and species characteristics the commenter mentioned. We are
supporting current research into the pollination, breeding systems,
demographics, responses to fire and nonnative grass removal and we are
in regular contact with the researchers working with beardless
chinchweed. Further studies will inform conservation and recovery
efforts for the species.
(12) Comment: A commenter indicated that beardless chinchweed
colonization of unoccupied habitat patches from known subpopulations
has been documented repeatedly since 1993. The commenter opined that
population losses are caused by metapopulation dynamics, and the
species readily occupies newly disturbed habitat.
Response: The beardless chinchweed has been located in plains,
great basin, semi-desert grasslands, oak savanna, and Madrean evergreen
woodland, and along disturbed roads, trails, and mining sites within
these vegetation communities. Beardless chinchweed groups occurring in
these habitats have collectively been counted as single subpopulations
or populations since their discoveries, and fluctuations of the number
of individuals found have been noted. We have no information on the
detection of colonization of unoccupied habitat; we welcome these data
from the commenter to inform subsequent Service actions.
(13) Comment: A commenter claimed the Service lacks basic knowledge
about the biology and habitat requirements of the beardless chinchweed
and is not following the mandate to base listing decisions on the best
scientific and commercial data available.
Response: We based this final listing determination on the best
available scientific and commercial information, and the commenter did
not provide any new information for us to consider. The best available
information on beardless chinchweed habitat indicates the species does
best on eroding soils in native-dominated grasslands. Additional
beardless chinchweed biology and habitat research is ongoing, and
results will inform future Service actions. In assessing the viability
of the beardless chinchweed, the best available scientific and
commercial data provide information about some aspects of species'
biology and habitat requirements, but may not represent a full and
complete knowledge of the species. We drew reasonable conclusions about
other aspects of the species' biology and requirements based on similar
species, similar habitats, and best available information.
(14) Comment: A commenter stated that the Service provides a
misleading discussion of the current status of the beardless chinchweed
and fails to recognize its life history as a disturbance-dependent and
extremely difficult species to detect.
Response: As described in the SSA report, beardless chinchweeed is,
and has historically been, found in open, native-dominated desert
grasslands, oak savannas, and oak woodlands. This species is also often
associated with active disturbances from frequent, low severity
wildfire; grazing and browsing of native animals during seed
production; and natural erosion of unstable substrates, thus reducing
competition. Many historical locations are now dominated by nonnative
grasses, have an altered wildfire regime, and no longer support the
species. Native-dominated habitats have diverse assemblages of
vegetation, each with a different-shaped and -sized canopy and root
system, which creates heterogeneity of form, height, and patchiness,
and provides openness. This is in contrast to nonnative-dominated
habitats, which are unnaturally dense, are evenly spaced, and have an
even understory height; burn with regularity; and contain species that
compete with beardless chinchweed for space, water, light, and
nutrients. The documented invasion of nonnative grasses throughout most
of the beardless chinchweed's range has greatly increased competition
and altered fire regimes in these areas. Historical populations
currently with nonnative grass dominance no longer support beardless
chinchweed due to this alteration of habitat. There are currently no
extant populations of beardless chinchweed without at least some level
of nonnative grass invasion. We acknowledge that the species is
difficult to detect. Despite the difficulty of detection, trained
botanists are conducting surveys during the bloom period, enhancing the
probability of detection.
(15) Comment: A commenter claimed the Service did not do due
diligence to list threats or make determinations but used the
petitioner's list of threats. The commenter also suggested the
Service's analysis of stressors is speculative and not based on hard
data.
Response: The Service's determination to list the species is based
on a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial
information and was subject to appropriate peer review. The petition
identifies livestock grazing as the primary threat to the beardless
chinchweed. Our analysis determined nonnative invasion and high-
severity fire are the primary threats to the species, with livestock
disturbance potentially benefitting the plants at certain times of the
year and potentially harming it at other times (summer and fall). We
used the best available scientific and commercial information in our
analyses.
(16) Comment: Three commenters claimed the Service's assumption
that nonnative grasses decrease habitat suitability and alter the fire
regime is not supported by the data and the method of assessment for
the effect of competition with nonnative grasses is unclear. The
species persists in nonnative grasslands and has positive population
growth following the Monument Fire.
Response: Beardless chinchweed typically occurs on steep, south-
facing, sunny to partially shaded hillslopes, with eroding bedrock and
open areas with little competition from other plants. Since 2012, many
surveys of historically documented beardless chinchweed population
areas detected no beardless chinchweed plants. The change in habitat in
these areas, with drastic increases in nonnative, invasive grasses that
provide limited bare soil needed by beardless chinchweed, indicates
that the areas are no longer suitable habitat for this species. Even in
areas that support the beardless chinchweed, such as at Coronado
National Memorial, biologists report that the beardless chinchweed has
not been found in any location dominated by nonnative grasses. In all
but a small number of historical populations, nonnative grasses have
increased to an extent that they exclude most native species, including
beardless chinchweed. Numerous surveys and studies indicate that the
beardless chinchweed does not occur in sites heavily impacted by
nonnative plants. Surveys for the beardless chinchweed note habitat
conditions, including the extent of nonnative grasses.
Historical frequent, low-severity fires in southern Arizona
grasslands have been replaced with more frequent and more severe fires
due, in part, to the invasion of nonnative plants. Beardless chinchweed
grassland habitats have been altered to include nonnative grasses and
hotter fires. The area where the beardless chinchweed occurs at
Coronado National Memorial experienced low to moderate severity fire in
the Monument Fire in 2011, and in 2019, low severity prescription fire
[[Page 31835]]
was used as a tool to benefit the beardless chinchweed (BAER 2017,
entire; Fitting 2020, pers. comm).
We assessed the effects of competition with nonnative grasses based
on habitat conditions reported in surveys of beardless chinchweed
populations. The extent of nonnative grasses in the area is negatively
associated with beardless chinchweed occurrence. Beardless chinchweed
occurs in areas with little natural competition and nonnative grasses
are strong competitors for required resources of sunlight, water, and
space. Several instances have been reported where surveys of more
densely vegetated habitat resulted in no beardless chinchweed found,
supporting this species' requirement for little competition (USFWS
2014a, p. 4; USFWS 2014b, p. 1; USFWS 2014c, p. 4; USFWS 2014d, p. 2;
Haskins and Murray 2017, p. 2). In addition, beardless chinchweed has
not been found in any location dominated by nonnative grasses on
National Park Service lands (National Park Service 2014, p. 4; Janway
2017, pers. comm.).
(17) Comment: A commenter indicated that managed livestock and wild
ungulate grazing are proven to reduce fuels for fires and requested all
language relating to domestic livestock threatening beardless
chinchweed be removed from the SSA report and the rule.
Response: Livestock grazing is not noted in the SSA report or the
rule as a major threat to the beardless chinchweed. While grazing is
not a major threat to the species, the activity does act as a stressor
to the beardless chinchweed in some circumstances, and the effect of
grazing is analyzed in the SSA report.
Wild ungulate grazing is noted in beardless chinchweed populations.
Coues white tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus ssp. couesi) and javelina
(Pecari tajacu) were observed in the vicinity of browsed beardless
chinchweed plants (USFWS 2015, pp. 1-2). In a 2019 study, researchers
reported 75 percent of 785 individuals studied in the population at
Coronado National Memorial showed signs of deer browse (Souther, 2020,
p. 1). The loss of flowers in any year equates to a loss of seed
production and seed bank storage, and reduction in genetic diversity.
Livestock grazing is expected to have a similar impact. Beardless
chinchweed does not flower until it reaches a height of over 1.6 ft
tall. Without time and resources to regrow, browsed plants may be
unable to attain adequate size for reproduction and are susceptible to
impacts from grazing (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 8; Falk and Warren 1994,
p. 157). Grazing pressure may have contributed to species' rareness due
to reduced reproduction and alteration in habitat (Keil 1982, pers.
comm.). Overgrazing is considered a stronger influence on beardless
chinchweed habitat in Mexico (Fishbein and Warren 1984, p. 20; Sanchez-
Escalante 2019, p. 17).
The beardless chinchweed SSA report concludes that grazing in
winter or spring when the plant is dormant would increase disturbance
and open habitat needed by the beardless chinchweed, while grazing in
summer or fall when the plant is growing and flowering could damage
plants or reduce seed production.
(18) Comment: A commenter recommended using past climate data at a
local level rather than modelling projections when discussing climate
as a threat.
Response: In the beardless chinchweed SSA report, figure 4.8a-c
shows both the past and projected mean daily maximum temperatures in
Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona. The data for past mean
daily maximum temperatures also indicate increases in temperature in
all three counties. Modeling projections based on the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment report (IPCC 2014, entire) and
future climate projections from the National Climate Explorer Tool
(USGS 2017a, entire) downscaled to county level were used to discuss
climate change and the effects of current and future changes on
beardless chinchweed. Section 4.2 of the SSA (USFWS 2020, pp. 29-42)
describes these modelling projections in greater detail.
(19) Comment: A commenter noted the degree of disturbance that is
harmful versus helpful to the beardless chinchweed needs to be
determined through research.
Response: Additional research into the amounts and types of
disturbance compatible with the beardless chinchweed would assist with
further actions related to the species. Three extant populations occur
along roadcuts, and another occurs along a maintained trail. Routine
vegetation maintenance along the roads and trails reduces competition
from other plants for sunlight and nutrients. However, roadside
maintenance could also damage or remove plants. 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). Nonnative grasses compete with
beardless chinchweed for space, water, light, and nutrients, and alter
wildfire regimes. Many of these historical locations no longer support
the beardless chinchweed due to alteration of habitat by nonnative
grasses (NPS 2014, pp. 3-4; Service 2014a, pp. 1-2; Service 2014b,
entire; Service 2014c, pp. 1-2). Therefore, for the purposes of our
analysis, we conclude that the presence of nonnatives following a
disturbance is not helpful to the beardless chinchweed.
(20) Comment: A commenter stated that demographic and environmental
stochasticity are naturally occurring phenomena for which beardless
chinchweed plants are very well-adapted.
Response: Demographic and environmental stochasticity are naturally
occurring phenomena (Shaffer 1981, p. 131). However, beardless
chinchweed populations adapted to naturally occurring phenomena now
experience the additional stressors of nonnative grass (competition and
altered fire regime) and the effects of a changing climate beyond the
scope of normal occurrence. For example, effects due to a changing
climate, coupled with other stressors, can have a cumulative impact
resulting in greater than anticipated decline in rare species (Souther
and McGraw 2014, pp. 1471-1472). In addition, populations that
experience variability in abundance must maintain a minimum viable
population to be able to repopulate after a demographic or
environmental stochastic event or catastrophe (Holsinger and Falk 1991,
p. 45). Rangewide (including Mexico), 11 of the 12 beardless chinchweed
populations (83 percent) are small (fewer than 50 individuals). When
the effect of small population size exacerbates other stressors beyond
those naturally occurring phenomena that beardless chinchweed has
adapted to, population abundance may be reduced to the extent that
repopulation does not occur.
(21) Comment: A commenter stated disturbance (including high
intensity grazing, post-wildfire runoff, trail and road maintenance,
and mining activities) are not threats to the beardless chinchweed. In
addition, one commenter stated that road graders will be banned, yet
they create habitat for the species.
Response: The beardless chinchweed likely requires low to moderate
intensity disturbance to maintain open habitat. This disturbance
includes localized natural erosion of unstable substrates following
precipitation events. Grazing could impact beardless chinchweed in
[[Page 31836]]
small populations with fewer than 50 individuals as flowers removed
equate to reduction in genetic diversity and seed production. Many
beardless chinchweed plants are precarious in their steep, sunny,
erodible habitat, and heavy post-fire flooding and erosion could easily
remove or bury plants. The beardless chinchweed is a species negatively
affected by competition from other plants, particularly nonnative
grasses. Activities that remove soils, increase nonnative plant spread,
or reduce habitat for the beardless chinchweed negatively affect the
species. Further, under this rule, the use of road graders will not be
banned. The use of road graders in activities conducted, funded,
permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies and the consequent effects
to the beardless chinchweed would be evaluated in a section 7
consultation to ensure that their use is compatible with beardless
chinchweed conservation.
(22) Comment: Three commenters indicated that the Service's
conclusion that small and isolated populations make recolonization of
extirpated beardless chinchweed populations unlikely is unsupported.
Response: The current distribution of beardless chinchweed consists
of populations widely separated on the landscape, and the plant's seeds
are not expected to travel long distances as typical of desert plants
in a specialized environment (Van Oudtshoorn and Van Rooyen 2013, p.2).
In addition, much of the grassland habitat surrounding known
populations has been altered by nonnative plant invasion and no longer
supports beardless chinchweed (National Park Service 2014, pp. 3-4;
USFWS 2014b, pp. 1-2; USFWS 2014c, entire; USFWS 2014d, pp. 1-2).
Throughout the range of the species, beardless chinchweed populations
are naturally fragmented between mountain ranges that are many miles
away from other mountain ranges, so natural re-establishment is
unlikely.
(23) Comment: Three commenters were concerned that critical habitat
units will be closed off to grazing and livestock will be removed
during the growing season on occupied allotments, which may have
significant impacts on cattle ranchers, or that the designation of
critical habitat will force the U.S. Forest Service to build cattle
exclosures. These allotments are dominated by nonnative species with
the exception of where the beardless chinchweed occurs. One commenter
recommended site-specific analysis to determine the level of management
considerations needed.
Response: The largest population of beardless chinchweed occurs on
NPS lands and is not grazed by cattle. The USFS currently implements
site-specific management for the extant beardless chinchweed sites, and
we anticipate they will continue to do so in the future. Of 8 beardless
chinchweed populations on USFS lands or portions of USFS lands, 4
populations currently experience some level of grazing. Two populations
occur in areas grazed only during March, which is outside of the
growing season for the beardless chinchweed (Heitholt 2017a, pers.
comm.). Another population is on an allotment that is grazed by cattle
in winter and spring, also outside of the flowering period for the
beardless chinchweed (Heitholt 2017b, pers. comm.). A fourth population
is in a yearlong, deferred rest rotational grazing regime, meaning any
growing season use is mitigated with growing season rest the following
year; in general, this area receives less than 25 percent utilization
due to topography and distance from water (Heitholt 2018, pers. comm.).
Cattle have not grazed another population that occurs partially on USFS
lands since 1968 (Wilcox 2017, pers. comm.).
The overlap of grazing allotments with critical habitat units is
fairly limited. Within occupied units, two allotments overlap with
critical habitat by less than 5 percent of the allotments' land area
(IEc 2018, p. 15). Within unoccupied units, one allotment overlaps
critical habitat by approximately 7 percent and two allotments overlap
by less than 3 percent of the allotments' land area (IEc 2018, p. 15).
The USFS will conduct section 7 consultation on the effects of grazing
to the beardless chinchweed and designated critical habitat following
the listing of the species (see DATES, above). Any site-specific
adjustments to grazing on allotments will be considered in the
consultation process.
(24) Comment: A commenter claimed the City of Sierra Vista, Fort
Huachuca, and other affected parties were not consulted during the
economic analysis process, which was performed too quickly.
Response: For the economic analysis, we considered affected parties
to be those that overlap with occurrences of, or are within immediate
proximity to, the species (e.g., USFS, NPS, Federal agencies conducting
border patrol activities). The City of Sierra Vista and Fort Huachuca
are more than 18 miles from any known population of the beardless
chinchweed; therefore, we did not seek input from those parties.
(25) Comment: A commenter requested the opportunity to verify that
their economic analysis comments were incorporated into the final
economic analysis.
Response: During the open public comment period on the December 6,
2019, proposed rule (84 FR 67060), we accepted comments on the draft
economic analysis for the critical habitat designation for the
beardless chinchweed. We considered comments we received on the draft
economic analysis. To view the economic analysis, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104.
(26) Comment: A commenter noted that proposed critical habitat
units 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 were visited during the 2019-2020 winter and
that the proposed essential physical and biological features were
present within discrete areas within a matrix of high canopy cover
grassland primarily dominated by nonnative grasses. They recommended a
wording change to indicate special management only in areas where all
essential physical and biological features co-occur, as not all of
these areas include all proposed essential physical and biological
features.
Response: Not all critical habitat units contain all of the
essential physical and biological features; in fact, it is unlikely
that any beardless chinchweed populations are free of nonnative grasses
entirely. The critical habitat units are focused largely on areas that
are currently dominated by native species or have a mix of native and
nonnative plants (USFS 2017). One goal to conserve the beardless
chinchweed is to work toward the reduction of nonnative plants in
critical habitat units. If only units with no nonnative species were
designated as critical habitat, there would be insufficient habitat to
conserve the species.
(27) Comment: One commenter is concerned that nonnatives are too
extensive to treat outside of small areas.
Response: We understand the challenges of controlling nonnative
plants and restoring native grasses to a site. We note that treatment
of nonnatives near beardless chinchweed populations is an initial step
in conserving the species.
(28) Comment: Two commenters stated that we failed to properly
identify and use the species' physical and biological features to
designate critical habitat. Another commenter stated that the physical
and biological features identified in the proposed rule for the
beardless chinchweed are general in nature and do not distinguish
proposed critical habitat units from vast areas of potential habitat,
suggesting there are hundreds of thousands (or more) acres of potential
habitat for the species.
[[Page 31837]]
Response: The physical and biological features identified for the
beardless chinchweed are based on the species' known biology, ecology,
and habitat requirements. These include the habitat required to
maintain pollinators, space for expansion and colonization of beardless
chinchweed populations, and the need of the species to have open spaces
without excessive nonnative grass competition. In unoccupied critical
habitat units, not all physical and biological features may be present,
but these areas are essential for the conservation of the beardless
chinchweed. Southern Arizona grasslands, oak savannas, and evergreen
woodlands have been invaded by nonnative plant species to an extensive
degree, rendering much of the potential habitat less suitable.
I. Final Listing Determination
Background
Please refer to the December 6, 2019, proposed rule to list and
designate critical habitat for the beardless chinchweed (84 FR 67060)
and the SSA report for a full summary of species information. Both are
available on our Southwest Region website at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-
ES-2018-0104.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
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.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological status review for the species, including an assessment of
the potential threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent
a decision by the Service on whether the species should be listed as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. It does, however,
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions,
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and
its implementing regulations and policies. The following is a summary
of the key results and conclusions from the SSA report; the full SSA
report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104 on http://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm.
To assess beardless chinchweed's viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events), and representation supports the ability of the species to
adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example,
climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a
species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to
sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species'
ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the
individual, population, and species levels, and described the
beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. This process used the best
available information to characterize viability as the ability of a
species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this
information to inform our regulatory decision.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
The beardless chinchweed is an erect, many-branched perennial of
the Asteraceae (sunflower) family. It occurs on sunny, south-facing
slopes in native-dominated grasslands, oak savannas,
[[Page 31838]]
and oak woodlands in southern Arizona and northern Mexico. The species
is particularly susceptible to competition from other plants and is
impacted by nonnative, invasive grasses, which outcompete this species
for light, water, nutrients, and space, and exacerbate unnatural high-
severity fires. Nine populations have been extirpated since 1962,
leaving 12 extant populations in Arizona and Mexico. The extirpated
sites have high levels of invasion by nonnative grasses. Most
populations are very small, with 92 percent of populations throughout
the range of the species supporting fewer than 50 individuals. These
small populations are particularly vulnerable to extirpation.
The beardless chinchweed occurs between elevations of 3,799 to
5,699 ft. It requires steep, south-facing, sunny to partially shaded
hillslopes with open areas and little competition from other plants. To
maintain species' viability, populations with multiple subpopulations
and overall high abundance must be distributed across the species range
and represent a range of environmental conditions. These populations
must experience recruitment that exceeds mortality. Beardless
chinchweed requires habitat consisting of native-dominated plant
communities on eroding limestone or granite bedrock substrate with
precipitation adequate for germination, growth and reproduction. The
native-dominated plant communities include plains, great basin, and
semi-desert grasslands, oak savanna, or Madrean evergreen woodlands and
communities dominated by bunchgrasses with open spacing and little
competition from other plants. In addition, these communities must
support sufficient beardless chinchweed pollinators (e.g., flies, bees,
and butterflies) including plants for pollinator foraging and nesting
within pollinator flight distance of beardless chinchweed populations.
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 influence the viability
of the species. These stressors are described in detail in chapter 4 of
the SSA report (Service 2020). 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 trampling and soil disturbance, and
post-wildfire runoff;
Grazing from wildlife and livestock; and
Small population size exacerbating all other stressors.
The largest risk to viability of the species is caused by the loss
of habitat from the invasion of nonnative grasses that compete for
space, water, light, and nutrients and that alter wildfire regimes.
This combination of stressors has resulted in many populations having
fewer than 50 individuals remaining, which puts them at risk of
extirpation from the primary stressor as well as additional stressors
that would not have been a concern under natural conditions. Much of
the historical range of the 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
the beardless chinchweed at this time: Lehmann's lovegrass (Eragrostis
lehmanniana) and rose natal (Melinis repens). Both of these species are
strong competitors on southern exposures where the beardless chinchweed
occurs.
Habitat Loss Caused by Nonnative Grasses
Lehmann's lovegrass, a nonnative grass from South Africa, has
numerous competitive advantages over native grasses in southern
Arizona. Lehmann's lovegrass resprouts from roots and tiller nodes not
killed by hot fire, is unhampered 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 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
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, Lehmann'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 Mexico (Stevens and
Fehmi 2009, p. 379; Romo et al. 2012, p. 34). Similar to Lehmann'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 2020, entire).
In addition, several other invasive African grasses and an invasive
Asian grass have been documented in southern Arizona and northern
Mexico (Van Devender and Reina 2005, p. 160; NatureServe 2020, entire;
Fire Effects Information System 2020, entire; SEINet, entire). 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). No beardless chinchweed
populations in the United States are more than 1 kilometer (km) (0.6
mile (mi)), and no beardless chinchweed populations in Mexico are more
than 27 km (16.8 mi), away from documented nonnative grasses (SEINet,
entire; Heitholt 2017b, pers. comm.). Because we have documented
nonnative infestations in the field in locations not shown in SEINet,
we conclude only a small portion of nonnative plants are
[[Page 31839]]
reported into the SEINet system in either country. Based on the above
information, 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 2011, p. 385; Fryer and Leunsmann 2012, entire). This low-
severity disturbance likely benefited beardless chinchweed by
maintaining open microhabitats and reducing competition. Fires are now
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 recreationists and cross-border violators
(Anable et al. 1992, p. 186; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, 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 Lessons 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 (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 2020). This
landscape is now dominated by both nonnative Lehmann's lovegrass and
rose natal (Service 2014b, entire; Heitholt 2017b, pers. comm.), and
many historically documented locations that supported beardless
chinchweed have not been found again (Service 2014b, 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 conclude the plant is not capable of surviving
high-severity fires.
Altered Precipitation, Drought, and Temperature
The southwestern United States is warming and experiencing severe
droughts of extended duration, changes in amount of snowpack and timing
of snow melt, and changes in timing and severity of precipitation and
flooding (Garfin et al. 2014, entire). The effects of a changing
climate are important considerations in the analysis of the stressors
to the beardless chinchweed, including increased nonnative competition
(described above) during times of low precipitation and drought (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). Low
precipitation and drought will also impact moisture availability for
beardless chinchweed germination, growth, and flowering. To analyze the
effects of a changing climate on beardless chinchweed, we relied on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment
(IPCC 2014, entire) and IPCC Climate Change 2013--The Physical Science
Basis (IPCC 2013, entire). Four emission scenarios, referred to as
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) were developed for the
latest IPCC report (IPCC 2014, p. 57). We evaluated the effects of
climate change on the beardless chinchweed using RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 to
bracket the range of environmental variability. The IPCC report (2014)
expresses confidence that emissions will fall within the RCP 4.5 and
8.5 range.
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 2013, p. 465). This means that the amount of runoff in the
spring when snow melts is reduced, as is soil moisture. Precipitation
is bimodal within the mountain ranges where the beardless chinchweed
occurs, with dormant season snow and rain, and growing season monsoon
rains. Precipitation during October through March is important for
beardless chinchweed germination and growth. In addition, the beardless
chinchweed does not flower until it reaches a height of more than 0.5
meter (m) (1.6 feet (ft)) tall; without sufficient precipitation,
beardless chinchweed may be unable to attain adequate size for
reproduction (Phillips et al. 1982, p. 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, seedling survival, plant growth, and
flowering. In addition, due to increased nonnative competition during
times of reduced precipitation and drought, impacts from these
stressors to the 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).
Projections of precipitation changes are less certain than those
for temperature (Garfin et al. 2014, p. 465). Downscaled models project
average precipitation will decrease in the southern Southwest where
beardless chinchweed occurs, with seasonal changes in precipitation
predicted. Projections of change in the mean annual precipitation from
2021 to 2099 range from a decrease of 20 percent to an increase of 8
percent (RCP 8.5 (major effects scenario in the SSA)) and a decrease of
10 percent to an increase of 10 percent (RCP 4.5 (moderate effects
scenario in the SSA)), with most models predicted a decline. (Garfin et
al. 2013, p. 113). Under emissions scenarios of RCP 4.5 and 8.5,
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). Late winter-spring mountain snowpack in the Southwest is
predicted to continue to decline over the 21st century under RCP 4.5
and RCP 8.5 scenarios because of increased temperature (Garfin et al.
2013, pp. 118-119). 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 (Garfin 2013, p. 117).
[[Page 31840]]
Grazing
There are two different perspectives on the influence of grazing on
the beardless chinchweed:
(1) Wildfire historically maintained native open habitat where the
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, pers. comm.), due to open space being created and
maintained by cattle; or
(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, indicating that grazing in
summer or fall when the plant is growing and flowering could reduce
seed production and recruitment. Approximately 75 percent of
individuals studied in a population at Coronado National Memorial
showed signs of deer browse (Souther 2019, pers. comm.). The effect on
plant reproduction was variable, with browsing appearing at times to
stimulate floral production (early season) and at other times appearing
to inhibit it (immediately prior to seed set).
Small Populations
Small population size affects beardless chinchweed population
resiliency, as all stressors are exacerbated in populations with only a
small number of individuals (fewer than 50). 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. We expect 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. Losses 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 the beardless chinchweed, and all
stressors are exacerbated in small populations.
Current Condition of Beardless Chinchweed
Since 1962, we are aware of nine extirpated populations and one
extirpated subpopulation of the beardless chinchweed in the United
States. Currently, six extant beardless chinchweed populations occur
across four mountain ranges in southern Arizona: The Atascosa-Pajarito,
Huachuca, and Santa Rita Mountains and the Canelo Hills. These six
populations consist of 992 individuals spread across less than 2
hectares (ha) (5 acres (ac)). Additionally, six populations have been
reported from northern Mexico, but this information is from 1940 or
earlier. In addition, we are aware of preliminary results of the fall
2020 survey efforts of the Coronado National Forest and the NPS
including the discovery of as many as 225 additional individuals near
and within known populations in the Coronado National Memorial and
Coronado National Forest. Prior to the discovery, the Coronado National
Memorial population was the largest known with 846 beardless chinchweed
individuals. The increased abundance and potential increased
distribution improves the resiliency of the Coronado National Memorial
population, but does not change the overall determination for the
species. We will continue to incorporate the best scientific
information from these and future survey efforts in revisions of the
SSA and Service decisions.
Population Resiliency of Beardless Chinchweed
To 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 the beardless chinchweed needs for
long-term viability revealed that there are a number of stressors
influencing this species. All beardless chinchweed populations likely
contain nonnative grasses with a competitive advantage over native
grasses during periods of drought. 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, is currently a risk to all populations of the 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
environmental conditions impacting all populations of the beardless
chinchweed and exacerbating an altered fire regime.
Road maintenance is likely resulting in the loss 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. The Ruby Road and
Scotia Canyon populations exhibit low resiliency, and the Coronado
National Memorial population exhibits moderate 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 currently exhibits low resiliency, and the
other exhibits moderate resiliency. Rangewide (including Mexico), 11 of
the 12 populations (83 percent) are small (fewer than 50 individuals).
Synergistic interactions among wildfire, nonnative grasses, decreased
precipitation, and increased temperatures cumulatively and cyclically
impact the beardless chinchweed, and all stressors are exacerbated in
small populations. Of the six extant populations in the United States,
two exhibit moderate resiliency and four exhibit low resiliency (see
table 1, below). A population with moderate resilience is one in which
abundance ranges from 100-300 individuals the population contains 2
subpopulations, and spatial distribution is limited with few groupings;
seed production is moderate; recruitment and mortality are equal such
that the population does not grow; the ability to withstand stochastic
events or recover from stochastic events is limited due to low
abundance and recruitment and to a reduced seed bank; and there is some
suitable habitat. A population with low resilience is one in which
abundance is less than 100 individuals, the population contains a
single subpopulation, and spatial distribution is limited; seed
production is low; mortality exceeds recruitment such that the
population is declining; the ability
[[Page 31841]]
to withstand stochastic events or recover from stochastic events is
unlikely due to low abundance and recruitment and to a limited seed
bank; and there is limited suitable habitat. The categories of
conditions used to determine population resiliency are further
described in the SSA report (Service 2020, Table 5.10) and the proposed
listing rule (84 FR 67060, December 6, 2019, p. 84 FR 67065).
Table 1--Beardless Chinchweed Current Population Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Mountain range/country Population Subpopulation 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 Post Canyon....... 0 Low.
Ranch. Tributary of 37
O'Donnell Canyon.
Copper Mountain.... .................. 0 Extirpated.
Harshaw Creek...... .................. 0 Extirpated.
Lampshire Well..... .................. 0 Extirpated.
Huachuca Mountains, USA......... Scotia Canyon...... .................. 40 Low.
Coronado National Visitor Center.... 785 Moderate.
Memorial. State of Texas 61
Mine.
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- .................. 32 Moderate.
Gunsight Pass.
McCleary Canyon- .................. 32 Low.
Wasp Canyon.
Chihuahua, Mexico............... Batopililas, Rio .................. ~10 Low.
Mayo.
Guasaremos, Rio .................. ~10 Low.
Mayo.
Sonora, Mexico.................. Canon de la .................. ~10 Low.
Petaquilla.
North of .................. ~10 Low.
Horconcitos.
Canyon Estrella, .................. ~10 Low.
Sierra de los
Cendros; southeast
of Tesopaco.
Los Conejos, Rio .................. ~10 Low.
Mayo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beardless Chinchweed Representation
No genetic studies have been conducted within or among the 21
historical populations of the 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 four
ranges 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.
Extant U.S. populations of the beardless chinchweed range in
elevation from 1,158 m (3,799 ft) to 1,737 m (5,699 ft). Of the 15
historical U.S. populations, 8 (approximately 53 percent) fall below
1,457 m (1,500 ft) elevation. Of these eight, six have been extirpated
in recent decades. This loss of lower elevation populations may mean
the loss of some local adaptation to warmer or drier environments and
genetic differentiation among populations.
In the Ruby Road, Scotia Canyon, and Coronado National Memorial
populations, and the Tributary of O'Donnell subpopulations, plants have
been reported over many decades, indicating that these populations may
have the genetic and environmental diversity needed to adapt to
changing conditions. However, 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 U.S. populations of the beardless chinchweed are spread across
the 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. Range separation makes
natural gene exchange or re-establishment following extirpation very
unlikely. In addition, six historical populations of the beardless
chinchweed are distributed across two general areas in northern
Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico. Their status is unknown, but we expect
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
the beardless chinchweed, 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.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the
current and future condition of the species. Our assessment of the
current and future conditions encompasses and
[[Page 31842]]
incorporates the threats individually and cumulatively. Our current and
future condition assessment is iterative because it accumulates and
evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be influencing the
species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA
framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what
degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our
assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and
replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Determination of Beardless Chinchweed's Status
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 meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as a species
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and ``threatened species'' as a species 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 a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``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.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
Historically, beardless chinchweed was known from 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 approximately 992 individuals spread
across less than 2 ha (5 ac). 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 the
historical locations no longer support the beardless chinchweed due to
this alteration of habitat (NPS 2014, pp. 3-4; Service 2014a, pp. 1-2;
Service 2014c, entire; Service 2014c, pp. 1-2).
All beardless chinchweed populations likely contain nonnative
grasses, resulting in habitat loss (Factor A). Further, an altered fire
regime (Factors A and E) impacts all populations currently or in the
near future and drives the spread of nonnatives (Factor A),
exacerbating the encroachment of nonnative grasses. Consequently, all
remaining populations of the 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 environmental conditions that are impacting all
populations of the beardless chinchweed. These environmental conditions
exacerbate an altered fire regime, driving the spread of nonnative
grasses with competitive advantages over native grasses during periods
of drought. Road and trail maintenance (Factors A and E) could damage
or remove individuals in three populations with low resiliency (Ruby
Road, Scotia Canyon, and Coronado National Memorial). In addition, all
individuals in these three populations may be impacted by dust (Factor
E) from the road. 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. Eleven of 12 populations (92
percent) are small (fewer than 50 individuals). Synergistic
interactions among wildfire, nonnative grasses, decreased
precipitation, and increased temperatures cumulatively and cyclically
impact the beardless chinchweed, and all stressors are exacerbated in
small populations (Factor E). No conservation efforts have been
implemented for this species.
We find 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 (the Coronado National Memorial population has two
subpopulations). 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 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, there may have been a loss of genetic
diversity in the nine extirpated populations.
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 (approximately 53 percent)
fall below 1,457 m (4,780 ft) elevation. Of these eight, six have been
extirpated in recent decades. The loss of lower elevation populations
may mean a loss of local adaptation to warmer or drier environments and
genetic differentiation among populations (Factor E).
The beardless chinchweed needs to have multiple resilient
populations distributed throughout its range to provide for redundancy.
These multiple resilient populations should be spread over the range
and distributed in such a way that a catastrophic event will not result
in the loss of all populations. With the known extant populations
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 disjunct populations. Therefore, a localized stressor such as
grazing during flowering would impact only those groups of plants near
the activity. However, nonnative plant invasion, climatic changes, and
repeated large-scale, moderate- and high-severity fires occur across
the region and could impact all populations now or in the near future.
The distance among populations reduces connectivity, making it unlikely
that another population naturally recolonizes a site after extirpation
(Factor E).
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we find that the 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 face a variety of factors
[[Page 31843]]
acting in combination to reduce the overall viability of the species.
The risk of extinction is high because the remaining populations are
small, are isolated, and have limited potential for natural
recolonization. We find that a threatened species status is not
appropriate for the beardless chinchweed because of the species'
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. Thus, after
assessing the best available information, we determine that the
beardless chinchweed is in danger of extinction throughout all of its
range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Because we have determined that beardless chinchweed is in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range, we did not undertake
an analysis of any significant portions of its range. Because the
beardless chinchweed warrants listing as endangered throughout all of
its range, our determination is consistent with the decision in Center
for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28,
2020), in which the court vacated the aspect of our Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided the
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service do not undertake an
analysis of significant portions of a species' range if the species
warrants listing as threatened throughout all of its range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the beardless chinchweed meets the
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we are listing the
beardless chinchweed as an endangered species in accordance with
sections 3(6) 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 consists of preparing draft and final recovery
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing
determination. 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 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 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.
Following publication of this final rule, 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
will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that
promote the protection or recovery of the beardless chinchweed.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Section 8(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1537(a)) authorizes the
provision of limited financial assistance for the development and
management of programs that the Secretary of the Interior determines to
be necessary or useful for the conservation of endangered or threatened
species in foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1537(b) and (c)) authorize the Secretary to encourage
conservation programs for foreign listed species, and to provide
assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the training
of personnel.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for the beardless chinchweed. 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 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)(2)
of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they
[[Page 31844]]
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect a listed species, the responsible Federal agency must enter into
consultation with the Service.
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 USFS (Coronado National
Forest), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
and NPS (Coronado National Memorial).
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered plants.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.61, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to: Import or export; remove and reduce to possession
from areas under Federal jurisdiction; maliciously damage or destroy on
any such area; remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy 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; deliver,
receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce,
by any means whatsoever and in the course of a commercial activity; or
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce an endangered
plant. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management
agencies, and State conservation agencies.
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. With regard to
endangered plants, a permit may be issued for scientific purposes or
for enhancing the propagation or survival of the species. There are
also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are
found in sections 9 and 10 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 section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed species.
Based on the best available information, the following actions are
unlikely to result in a violation of section 9, if these activities are
carried out in accordance with existing regulations and permit
requirements; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Normal nonnative, invasive species control practices, such as
herbicide use, that are carried out in accordance with any existing
regulations, permit and label requirements, and best management
practices;
(2) Annual monitoring efforts; and
(3) Additional surveys to understand the extent of occupied
habitat. Based on the best available information, the following actions
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act if they
are not authorized in accordance with applicable law; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized damage or collection of beardless chinchweed from
lands under Federal jurisdiction;
(2) Malicious destruction or degradation of the species or
associated habitat on lands under Federal jurisdiction, including the
intentional introduction of nonnative organisms that compete with or
consume beardless chinchweed.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
II. Critical Habitat
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 (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 Federal agency would be required to consult
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the
Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the
proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they
must 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
[[Page 31845]]
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 occupied 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 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 Endangered Species 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 prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
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, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different
outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, 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. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, 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. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline
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, 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 essential
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;
[[Page 31846]]
and habitats that are protected from disturbance.
The 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 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 mountain 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, one mountain range has only two
populations, 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
increased temperatures, increased 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 approximately 992 individual beardless chinchweed plants
spread across less than 2 ha (5 ac) within six extant populations
spread across 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.
Space for individual and population growth is needed for the
beardless chinchweed, including sites for germination, pollination,
reproduction, pollen and seed dispersal, and seed banks in the form of
open, native-dominated plains, great basin, and semi-desert grasslands,
oak savannas, and Madrean evergreen or oak woodlands at 1,158 to 1,737
m (3,799 to 5,699 ft) in elevation (SEINet, entire) representing the
ecosystems where beardless chinchweed occurs. 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. The diverse vegetation is dominated by bunchgrasses
with open spacing (adjacent to and within 10 m (33 ft) of beardless
chinchweed plants), providing beardless chinchweed with the necessary
open habitat with little competition. The beardless chinchweed is
presumed to be a poor competitor due to its preference for this open
habitat and the inability to find the species under dense vegetation
conditions.
Pollination is necessary for effective fertilization, out-crossing,
and seed production in beardless chinchweed. Bees, flies, and
butterflies most likely pollinate beardless chinchweed, like other
yellow-flowered composites. 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.
Specific details about the physical or biological features
essential to this species are described earlier in this document and in
the SSA report (Service 2020).
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derived the specific physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the 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 of
the areas in Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, 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) Between elevation of 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).
Special Management Considerations or Protection
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 2, below).
Special management considerations or protection are required within
critical habitat areas to address these stressors. Management
activities that could 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,
cleaning of vegetation management equipment between uses, 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 so that open space and sun exposure are
[[Page 31847]]
maintained in beardless chinchweed habitat.
Table 2--Features That May Require Special Management
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special management or
Features that may require special Stressors to features protection to address Features protected by
management stressors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 or other
promotion or introduction tools; avoidance of
of native forbs and introducing nonnative
grasses. species.
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 or other
grasses. tools; avoidance 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
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. 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.
Because of the vulnerability associated with small populations,
limited distributions, or both, conservation of the beardless
chinchweed requires protection of both existing occupied habitat and
potential habitat (i.e., suitable for occupancy but currently
unoccupied), and the establishment of new populations to reduce or
eliminate such vulnerability. The current distribution of beardless
chinchweed is reduced from its historical distribution to a level where
the species is in danger of extinction. Of the six U.S. populations
that occur in four mountain ranges, two populations are in moderate
condition and four are in low condition. Conservation of the species
will require populations with increased resiliency, abundance, and
distribution to increase the redundancy and representation of beardless
chinchweed. Due to current stressors and expected future stressors,
remaining populations are small, are isolated, and have limited
potential for natural recolonization. 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 (i.e., increased
redundancy). For these reasons, we conclude that a critical habitat
designation limited to areas occupied at the time of listing would be
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
We are designating critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area currently occupied by the species (i.e., at the time
of proposed listing). In this case, we determined that occupied areas
are inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. Thus, we
looked at historically occupied areas that currently possess the
physical and biological features to determine if any areas are suitable
for beardless chinchweed recolonization and subsequent persistence. In
addition to areas occupied by the species at the time of listing, we
are designating specific areas outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing (Units 5, 6, and 7), which were
historically occupied but are presently unoccupied, because those areas
are essential for the conservation of the species and contain one or
more of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. The Service is reasonably certain that the
unoccupied areas will contribute to the conservation of the species as
a result of ongoing conservation efforts for beardless chinchweed with
USFS that are expected to continue, including habitat management and
research. When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include 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. In this case, we used existing
occurrence data for the beardless chinchweed and information on the
habitat and ecosystems upon which it depends. These sources of
information included, but were not limited to:
(1) Data used to prepare the rule to list the species;
(2) Information from biological surveys;
(3) Various agency reports and databases;
(4) Information from NPS and other cooperators;
(5) Information from species experts;
(6) Data and information presented in academic research theses; and
(7) Regional Geographic Information System (GIS) data (such as
species occurrence data, land use, topography, aerial imagery, soil
data, and land ownership maps) for area calculations and mapping.
Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing
In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424.12(b), we reviewed available information pertaining to the
habitat requirements of the species, identified specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing,
and examined whether we could identify any specific areas outside
[[Page 31848]]
the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered for
designation as critical habitat.
The 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 (2 populations),
Audubon Research Ranch, Scotia Canyon, Coronado National Memorial, and
Ruby Road.
Areas Outside the Geographical Area Occupied at the Time of Listing
Because we determined that a critical habitat designation limited
to geographical areas occupied by the species would be inadequate to
ensure the conservation of the species, we are also designating
unoccupied areas. 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 the
beardless chinchweed, but are not currently occupied by the species. We
determined these sites to be extirpated. Areas not occupied by the
species at the time of listing are only considered to be essential if
they contain one or more of the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and if we have a
reasonable certainty that the area will contribute to the conservation
of the species. 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 the beardless
chinchweed; (2) whether the area could be restored to support the
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 USFS lands contain a mixture of native and nonnative
grasses that could be feasibly 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 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 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 designating as critical habitat
provide for the conservation of the 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 National Forest contains
several important guidelines that will contribute to the conservation
of the beardless chinchweed, including control of nonnative vegetation,
promotion of native grasses, and protections for species listed under
the Act (USFS 2018). Designation of critical habitat will facilitate
the application of this guidance where it will 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
necessary for the beardless chinchweed. We then mapped critical habitat
units using ArcMap version 10 (Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc.), a GIS program.
The areas included in the critical habitat designation 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 critical habitat boundaries within this final
rule, 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 the
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 rule have been excluded by text in the rule and are not
designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving
these lands will 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 designating critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing (i.e.,
currently occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or
biological features that are essential to
[[Page 31849]]
support the life-history processes of the species. Because of the
species' vulnerabilities related to small, isolated populations,
current and ongoing stressors, and limited distribution, we have
determined that occupied areas are inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species. We are also designating specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of
listing, that were historically occupied but are presently unoccupied,
because we have determined that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.
On December 16, 2020, we published a final rule in the Federal
Register (85 FR 81411) adding a definition of ``habitat'' to our
regulations for purposes of critical habitat designations under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This rule became
effective on January 15, 2021 and only applies to critical habitat
rules for which a proposed rule was published after January 15, 2021.
Consequently, this new regulation does not apply to this final rule.
Units are designated based on one or more of the physical or
biological features being present to support the beardless chinchweed's
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 the beardless chinchweed's 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 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).
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating approximately 10,604 ac (4,291 ha) in eight
units as critical habitat for the beardless chinchweed. The critical
habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment
of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the beardless
chinchweed. Those eight units are: (1) McCleary Canyon, (2) Audubon
Research Ranch, (3) Scotia Canyon, (4) Coronado National Memorial, (5)
Lampshire Well, (6) Harshaw Creek, (7) Washington Camp, and (8) Ruby
Road. Table 3 shows the name, occupancy of the unit, land ownership,
and approximate area of the designated critical habitat for the
beardless chinchweed.
Table 3--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.......................... U.S. Forest Service 1,686 ac (682 ha).
(USFS).
2--Audubon Research Ranch.......... Yes.......................... Bureau of Land 1,170 ac (474 ha)
Management (BLM), BLM; 817 ac (331 ha)
USFS, Private USFS; 300 ac (121
(Audubon Research ha) private.
Ranch).
3--Scotia Canyon................... Yes.......................... USFS................. 855 ac (346 ha).
4--Coronado National Memorial...... Yes.......................... National Park Service 2,109 ac (853 ha).
5--Lampshire Well.................. No........................... USFS................. 939 ac (380 ha).
6--Harshaw Creek................... No........................... USFS................. 1,013 ac (410 ha).
7--Washington Camp................. No........................... USFS................. 939 ac (380 ha).
8--Ruby Road....................... Yes.......................... USFS................. 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 the beardless chinchweed,
below. Each of the eight units contain at least one of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of beardless
chinchweed (see Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features,
above).
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
USFS. 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 ongoing and historical mining activities
occur throughout the Santa Rita Mountains. This unit also receives
substantial recreational pressure and livestock grazing. The Gunsight
Pass population is one of the few populations within the range of the
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 all five of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the beardless
chinchweed. 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, listed as Rana chiricahuensis). This unit
overlaps with designated critical habitat for the 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
[[Page 31850]]
here historically. The Audubon Research Ranch unit supports 37
individual beardless chinchweed plants and is one of the few sites
within the range of the beardless chinchweed where native grass species
dominate the site. The Audubon Research Ranch unit provides all five of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the beardless chinchweed. 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,
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 USFS. This
unit is 855 ac (346 ha) in size and is currently occupied by beardless
chinchweed. This unit includes one extant population estimated to
contain 40 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 all five of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the beardless chinchweed. 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 NPS. This unit is 2,109 ac (853 ha) in size and is occupied by
beardless chinchweed. The unit contains two extant subpopulations: The
Visitor Center and the State of Texas Mine. The area around the visitor
center supports approximately 785 individual beardless chinchweed
plants. Another 61 plants have been documented in the vicinity of the
State of Texas mine. This unit includes lands within the 1 km buffer of
foraging and reproductive habitat for pollinators necessary for the
beardless chinchweed where the historical subpopulation, Joe's Canyon
Trail, occurred. As described in the response to public comments,
beardless chinchweed may have been noted at Joe's Canyon Trail in 2012;
however, three surveys since 2014 have not detected the species. The
lands in this unit have been affected by historical mining, support a
high level of recreational use, and experience 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 all
five of the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of beardless chinchweed. 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 USFS. 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 impacts from cross-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 for northern
Mexican gartersnake.
Although it is currently unoccupied, this unit contains all five of
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
beardless chinchweed. This unit consists of a mix of native and
nonnative grasses, with scattered oak and juniper, 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 that contain more native
grasses than nonnative grasses. The USFS 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 FS 2018, pp. 18, 67, 212, 216). 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 necessary 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 all five 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 cross-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. In addition,
this unit includes designated critical habitat for jaguar and proposed
[[Page 31851]]
critical habitat for northern Mexican gartersnake.
Although it is currently unoccupied, portions of this unit contain
all five of the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of beardless chinchweed. This unit consists of a mix of
native and nonnative grasses, with scattered oak and junipers, 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. 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, pp.
18, 67, 212, 216). 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 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 all five of the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
it is reasonably certain to 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. A number of mining activities are proposed on
lands within this unit, and this unit is also subject to cross-border
activities (foot traffic and increased fire ignition), recreational
use, 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 currently unoccupied, portions of this unit contain
all five of the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of beardless chinchweed. This unit consists of a mix of
native and nonnative grasses, with scattered oak and juniper 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 that contain
more native grasses than nonnative grasses. 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, pp.
18, 67, 212, 216). 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. Recovery of
this species will require new and expanded populations, and this unit
provides for this needed 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 has been affected by past mining
activities, and is subject to ongoing cross-border activities (foot
traffic and increased fire ignition), recreational use, grazing, and
wildfire. The Ruby Road unit currently provides four of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of beardless
chinchweed. 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 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 rule revising the 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.
[[Page 31852]]
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 proposed or final rule that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate 7(a)(2)
of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, or that
may be affected by 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 with a completed INRMP within the final
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. On December 18, 2020, we published a final rule in the
Federal Register (85 FR 82376) revising portions of our regulations
pertaining to exclusions of critical habitat. These final regulations
became effective on January 19, 2021 and apply to critical habitat
rules for which a proposed rule was published after January 19, 2021.
Consequently, these new regulations do not apply to this final rule.
We describe below the process that we undertook for taking into
[[Page 31853]]
consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant
impacts.
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 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 when conducting a discretionary 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 the 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 the beardless chinchweed (Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc)
2018, entire). We began by conducting a screening analysis of the
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 particular
geographic areas of critical habitat that are already subject to such
protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur 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. 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. If there are any unoccupied units in the
critical habitat designation, the screening analysis assesses whether
any additional management or conservation efforts may incur incremental
economic impacts. This screening analysis, combined with the
information contained in our IEM, is what we consider our economic
analysis of the critical habitat designation for the 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
designation of critical habitat for beardless chinchweed, first we
identified, in the IEM dated August 30, 2018, probable incremental
economic impacts associated with the following categories of
activities: (1) Federal lands management (NPS, USFS, Bureau of Land
Management); (2) grazing (USFS, Bureau of Land Management); (3) wild
and prescribed fire (NPS, USFS, Bureau of Land Management); (4)
groundwater pumping (USFS); (5) mining (USFS); (6) fuels management
(NPS, USFS, Bureau of Land Management); (7) transportation (road
construction and maintenance; NPS, USFS); and (8) trampling and dust
creation from recreation and border protection activities (U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, USFS, NPS). 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 would already be required to consult with the Service
under section 7 of the Act on activities they conduct, fund, permit, or
authorize that may affect the species. When this rule becomes effective
(see DATES, above), consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse
modification of beardless chinchweed critical habitat will 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. For
species where the designation of critical habitat is finalized
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
will 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
[[Page 31854]]
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 designation of critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation for beardless chinchweed totals
approximately 7,713 ac (3,121 ha, or 73 percent of the total critical
habitat designation) of currently occupied habitat and 2,891 ac (1,170
ha, or 27 percent of the total critical habitat designation) of
unoccupied habitat (see Table 3, above). Every unit of critical habitat
for the 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 beardless 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 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 the 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 critical habitat (Units 1,
2, 3, 4, and 8), any actions that may affect the species or its habitat
would also affect 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 the 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 expected that, in most circumstances, these
costs would predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be
significant (IEc 2018, entire). In 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 determine the additional administrative
cost to address chinchweed critical habitat in the consultation is
minor, costing approximately $5,100 per consultation (2017 dollars).
For the 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 determined the
incremental administrative effort will be greater on a per consultation
basis. Thus, we concluded 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
designated areas; however, U.S. Forest Service staff express 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, our recommendations regarding 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. The economic analysis 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 an exclusion period.
We estimated a range of potential costs related to grazing, based on
two scenarios. In the low-end scenario, we determined that AUM
reductions would only occur in allotments where 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 determined that ranchers are unable to change
practices, and the loss in AUMs is proportional to the amount of
overlap between designated critical habitat and the relevant allotment.
To identify the allotments overlapping unoccupied units and the
number of AUMs permitted in each allotment, data were obtained from
U.S. Forest Service. Those data were 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 determined 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 critical
habitat units. This could result in the need to construct additional
linear miles of
[[Page 31855]]
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 (approximately 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 designated areas. As a conservative
estimate (i.e., more likely to overestimate than underestimate costs),
we concluded 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. When
no more than six consultations, and therefore projects, are likely in a
given year, the section 7 impacts of this critical habitat designation
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 designated unoccupied areas; 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.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
We considered the economic impacts of the critical habitat
designation and the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to
exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the
beardless chinchweed based on economic impacts. A copy of the IEM and
screening analysis with supporting documents may be obtained by
contacting the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or by downloading from the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all Department of
Defense (DoD) lands or areas that pose potential national-security
concerns (e.g., a DoD installation that is in the process of revising
its INRMP for a newly listed species or a species previously not
covered). If a particular area is not covered under section
4(a)(3)(B)(i), national-security or homeland-security concerns are not
a factor in the process of determining what areas meet the definition
of ``critical habitat.'' Nevertheless, when designating critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2), the Service must consider impacts on
national security, including homeland security, on lands or areas not
covered by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will always consider
for exclusion from the designation areas for which DoD, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), or another Federal agency has requested
exclusion based on an assertion of national-security or homeland-
security concerns.
We cannot, however, automatically exclude requested areas. When
DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical
habitat on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts,
it must provide a reasonably specific justification of an incremental
impact on national security that would result from the designation of
that specific area as critical habitat. That justification could
include demonstration of probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing
border-security patrols and surveillance activities, or a delay in
training or facility construction, as a result of compliance with
section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does
not provide us with a reasonably specific justification, we will
contact the agency to recommend that it provide a specific
justification or clarification of its concerns relative to the probable
incremental impact that could result from the designation. If the
agency provides a reasonably specific justification, we will defer to
the expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1)
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great
weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing
the benefits of exclusion.
No lands within the designation of critical habitat for beardless
chinchweed are owned or managed by the DoD. The U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (Department of Homeland Security) conducts border security
operations and enforcement activities within and outside the 60-foot
Roosevelt Reservation along the United States/Mexico border (Unit 4).
This rule takes into account any relevant national security impacts
of the designation of critical habitat for the beardless chinchweed. We
coordinated with the Customs and Border Protection (Department of
Homeland Security) on the proposed and final designations of critical
habitat. The agency did not request an exclusion from critical habitat
based on potential national security impacts. We note that Congress has
provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security a number of authorities
necessary to carry out the Department's border security mission. One of
those authorities is found at section 102 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended
(``IIRIRA''). In section 102(a) of IIRIRA, Congress provided that the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be
necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including
the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the
vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in
areas of high illegal entry into the United States. In
[[Page 31856]]
section 102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress mandated the installation of
additional fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on
the southwest border. Finally, in section 102(c) of IIRIRA, Congress
granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to waive
all legal requirements that he determines are necessary to ensure the
expeditious construction of barriers and roads authorized by section
102 of IIRIRA. On May 15, 2019, the Secretary of Homeland Security
issued waivers for legal requirements covering border barrier
activities directly in the vicinity of the beardless chinchweed's known
range and proposed critical habitat (85 FR 9794).
No impacts to national security or homeland security were presented
to the Service, and we have no reason to expect such impacts from this
designation of critical habitat. Consequently, the Secretary is not
exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from the final
designation based on impacts on national security.
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
habitat conservation plans, 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 final rule, we have determined that there are
currently no permitted conservation plans or other non-permitted
conservation agreements or partnerships for the beardless chinchweed,
and the final critical habitat designation does not include any Tribal
lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on Tribal lands,
partnerships, or permitted or non-permitted plans or agreements from
this critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not
exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from the final
designation based on other relevant impacts.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will
review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order (E.O.) 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.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in the light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies 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) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it
is our position that only Federal action agencies will 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 will be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the
Service certifies that this critical habitat designation will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period on the
December 6, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 67060) that may pertain to our
consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this
critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our
certification that this critical habitat
[[Page 31857]]
designation will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, and a 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. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory
action under consideration. The economic analysis finds that none of
these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on
information in the economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated
with beardless chinchweed conservation activities within critical
habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat
is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use. 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 will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, 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 will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because the area included in the critical
habitat designation is largely owned by Federal agencies, with a small
amount of private land (3 percent). Consequently, we do not believe
that the critical habitat designation significantly or uniquely affects
small government entities. 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 the 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, 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
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed
and concludes that this designation of critical habitat for beardless
chinchweed does 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 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 the critical habitat designation with, the
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 State, or on the relationship
between the national government and the State, 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
[[Page 31858]]
under section 7(a)(2) 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 are designating critical
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, this rule
identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species. The designated areas of critical
habitat are presented on a map, and the rule provides several options
for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information,
if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
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 the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of 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)).
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 determined that there are no Tribal lands occupied by the
beardless chinchweed at the time of listing that contain the physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species,
and no Tribal lands unoccupied by the beardless chinchweed that are
essential to the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not
designating critical habitat for the beardless chinchweed on Tribal
lands, and no Tribal lands are affected by the designation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in the SSA report and this
rulemaking is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2018-0104 and upon request from the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and 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.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we 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 an entry for ``Pectis imberbis'' in alphabetical order under
FLOWERING PLANTS to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Scientific name Common name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Pectis imberbis................. Beardless Wherever found.... E 86 FR [INSERT Federal
chinchweed. Register PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS],
June 15, 2021; 50 CFR
17.96(a).\CH\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.96(a) by adding an entry, in alphabetical order, for
``Family Asteraceae: Pectis imberbis (beardless chinchweed)'' 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
[[Page 31859]]
Counties, Arizona, on the map in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the beardless chinchweed 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 beardless
chinchweed 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 beardless chinchweed 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 the rule.
(4) 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 maps 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 each 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 and 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) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.000
[[Page 31860]]
(6) Unit 1: McCleary Canyon, Pima County, Arizona.
(i) Unit 1 consists of 682 hectares (1,686 acres) of U.S. Forest
Service lands.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.001
[[Page 31861]]
(7) Unit 2: Audubon Research Ranch, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
(i) 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 (1,170 acres) by the Bureau of Land Management, and 121
hectares (300 acres) by the Audubon Research Ranch.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.002
[[Page 31862]]
(8) Unit 3: Scotia Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona.
(i) Unit 3 consists of 346 hectares (855 acres) of U.S. Forest
Service lands.
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.003
[[Page 31863]]
(9) Unit 4: Coronado National Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona.
(i) Unit 4 consists of 853 hectares (2,109 acres) of National Park
Service lands.
(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.004
[[Page 31864]]
(10) Unit 5: Lampshire Well, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
(i) Unit 5 consists of 380 hectares (939 acres) of U.S. Forest
Service lands.
(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.005
[[Page 31865]]
(11) Unit 6: Harshaw Creek, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
(i) Unit 6 consists of 410 hectares (1,013 acres) of U.S. Forest
Service lands.
(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.006
[[Page 31866]]
(12) Unit 7: Washington Camp, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
(i) Unit 7 consists of 380 hectares (939 acres) of U.S. Forest
Service lands.
(ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.007
[[Page 31867]]
(13) Unit 8: Ruby Road, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
(i) Unit 8 consists of 314 hectares (776 acres) of U.S. Forest
Service lands.
(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN21.008
[[Page 31868]]
* * * * *
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-12005 Filed 6-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C